The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed, against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0003174. Respondent, who was first licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1946, retired in 1984 and his license was soon thereafter placed on an inactive status. Respondent is registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA # AP 0114087, authorizing Respondent to issue controlled substances in Coral Gables, Florida. In June 1987, Respondent resided in or near Franklin, North Carolina. Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine in the State of North Carolina, and he is not authorized to issue controlled substances in the State of North Carolina. On or about June 8, 1987, Respondent authorized Kenneth Leon Murphy, a pharmacist who at that time worked at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina, to fill a prescription for acetaminophen with codeine and to dispense the same to Respondent. Codeine is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. This prescription was filled on June 8, 1987, by the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina and picked up by Respondent that same day. On June 11, 1987, Respondent wrote a prescription for chloral0 hydrate to be dispensed to himself. Respondent listed his Drug Enforcement Agency number on the prescription. Respondent had the prescription filled by Mr. Murphy at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina where he personally picked up the prescription. Chloral hydrate is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(q),(r), and (v), Florida Statutes, which reprimands Respondent for these violations, and which places Respondent's licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is recommended that no administrative fine be imposed in consideration of the mitigating factors presented by this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 3670 The proposed finding contained in paragraph ten of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order that Respondent's license is delinquent is rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William S. Piper, Sr., M.D. 1019 Malaga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth B. Basley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Victor Rudolph Cobham made application for filing for examination as a Life and Health Agent on February 12, 1987, (hereafter, "application"). Question 8 of that application and Petitioner's answers thereto read as follows: Have you ever been charged with a felony? Yes If YES, give date(s): Dec. 16, 1983 What was the crime? Possession of cocaine & cannabis Where and when were you charged? Dade County, Dec. 16, 1983 Did you plead guilty or nolo contendere? Nolo Contendere on Appeal Were you convicted? Yes - Conviction reversed by 3rd District Court of Appeal Was adjudication withheld? See attachments to application Please provide a brief description of the nature of the offense charged. See attachments to application If there has been more than one felony charge, provide an explanation as to each charge on an attachment. Certified copies of the Information or Indictment and Final Adjudication for each charge is required. In response to the above question 8 Petitioner listed no other charges, convictions, or pleas, however he had, in fact, been charged on at least three other occasions. Petitioner was charged by an August 3, 1978 Information with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), possession of cannabis in a felony amount, and possession or sale of a controlled substance implement (paraphernalia) in Case No. 78-7960 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. All of these charges were felony charges. Petitioner plead guilty to all charges. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner was also charged by a September 18, 1978 Information with failure to redeliver a hired vehicle (rental car) in Case No. 78-10543 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, which charge constitutes a felony. Petitioner pled guilty. Adjudication was withheld. In 1967, Petitioner was also charged with passing a worthless bank check but the charges were dropped because the check was paid. Whether this was a felony or misdemeanor charge is not clear. On March 31, 1987, the Insurance Commissioner denied Petitioner's application to sit for the insurance agent's examination due to this failure to divulge in his responses to question 8 of his application the facts contained in findings of fact 4-6, supra. Petitioner's position was that he had subconsciously omitted the information on the two 1978 charges due to the lapse of time and that since these charges did not result in any "convictions" no fraud was committed by him in failing to disclose them in response to question 8 of the application. He further asserted that because the Third District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction in the 1983 case, he had a "clean record." He offered no specific explanation for failing to reveal the 1967 charges except that with respect to all charges, he also asserted that he had assumed the agency would do an extensive background check as a result of his admission concerning the 1983 charge and would therefore discover all the charges prior to 1983 as well. Having weighed the credibility of Petitioner's testimony; the undersigned finds that Petitioner committed a material misstatement, misrepresentation, and fraud upon his application and that his reasons for his misstatement, misrepresentation and fraud are neither logical nor credible as mitigation therefor. Petitioner was previously a licensed insurance agent but has allowed his licensure to lapse. He has worked in insurance in one way or another for most of his adulthood. He is now an articulate 56 year old man who has completed two years of college. By education, training, and experience, Petitioner knows the difference between a charge and a conviction. Question 8 on the application requested that he list and explain all charges, not just convictions. It asked for types of pleas entered and whether adjudication had been withheld, thereby giving Petitioner every opportunity to explain the status of his record. Petitioner is knowledgeable about the various nuances of the judicial dispositions of each of the charges brought against him, and his failure to reveal them on his application can only be construed as deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, and fraud.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for filing for examination as a Life and Health Agent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Angelo A. Ali, Esquire 400 Roberts Building 26 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue Case Number 91-8116EC: Whether the Respondent, Fred Peel, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes: (1) by failing to have complaint review procedures in place in his office as required by Section 112.533(1), Florida Statutes; (2) by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report; and (3) by attempting to charge $5.00 for copy of the arrest report? Case Number 91-8323EC: Whether the Respondent, John Jenkins, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report?
Findings Of Fact The Respondents. The Respondent, Fred Peel, is the Sheriff of Washington County, Florida. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel has continuously served as the Sheriff of Washington County for the past fifteen years. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel is an elected official. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Sheriff Peel served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Respondent, John Jenkins, is a captain with the Washington County Sheriff's Department. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins has continuously served with the Sheriff's Department for ten years. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins was appointed by Sheriff Peel pursuant to Chapter 30, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Captain Jenkins served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Arrest of the Complainant. The complainant, Timothy Hinson, was arrested by a deputy of the Washington County Sheriff's Office on November 26, 1990. Mr. Hinson was charged with driving under the influence, driving while license suspended or revoked and refusal to sign citation. (Stipulated Fact). At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hinson was intoxicated. Mr. Hinson's speech was slurred, his appearance was disheveled and his ability to understand verbal communication was poor. After being arrested and transported to the Washington County jail, Mr. Hinson made profane and abusive threats addressed to the arresting deputy and the "Sheriff". Mr. Hinson threatened to have the "Sheriff" removed. Mr. Hinson did not know who the Sheriff was at the time. Mr. Hinson's actions, failed to prove, as suggested by the Respondents, that Mr. Hinson had a vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence merely proved that Mr. Hinson was drunk. The parties stipulated that, prior to his arrest on November 26, 1990, Mr. Hinson had been arrested six times since 1983. This evidence failed to prove, however, the Respondents' contention that Mr. Hinson had a grudge or vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence suggests that Mr. Hinson has a drinking problem. Mr. Hinson's Effort to Obtain a Copy of His Arrest Record. Just prior to noon on December 28, 1990, Mr. Hinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson went to the Sheriff's offices with the intent to obtain a copy of the records related to his arrest on November 26, 1990. (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Hinson was met in the lobby of the Sheriff's offices by Sharon Bellamy, an employee of Sheriff Peel. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he wanted a copy of his arrest record. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he needed a copy of the documents for his defense. Ms. Bellamy retrieved Mr. Hinson's file from the office where records were kept and brought it to the lobby to make the copies requested at a copy machine located in the lobby. There were two documents in the file that Mr. Hinson requested: the complaint and the arresting report. As Ms. Bellamy began to make a copy of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, she found a copy of another document that had been mailed to Mr. Hinson that he had not requested. The document was a notice to Mr. Hinson that his Florida drivers' license had been suspended for refusing to take a breath test. Ms. Bellamy began quizzing Mr. Hinson about whether he had received the document. Although Mr. Hinson had in fact received the notice Ms. Bellamy asked him about, he told her he had not and requested a copy of it. Ms. Bellamy continued to ask Mr. Hinson about the notice. The conversation between Mr. Hinson and Ms. Bellamy became more agitated, although the evidence failed to prove why. Pam Miner, the Sheriff's secretary, was in an office next to the lobby. The door opening into the lobby was open and Ms. Miner overheard Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel was sitting in his office, which adjoined Ms. Miner's office. The door opening into Ms. Miner's office was also open and he could also hear the discussion. At some time after Ms. Bellamy began discussing the notice concerning Mr. Hinson's driver's license with him, Ms. Miner went to the door of Sheriff Peel's office and gave him a look which she described as intended to convey to Sheriff Peel that "you need to do something". After Ms. Miner looked into Sheriff Peel's office, he went out into the lobby. Sheriff Peel initially watched what was going on. At some point shortly after Sheriff Peel went into the lobby he asked Mr. Hinson some questions about Mr. Hinson's driver's license. Mr. Hinson informed Sheriff Peel that he had a Maryland driver's license. At some point during the discussion between Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson, Mr. Hinson indicated that he was seeking a copy of the documents in his file for his attorney. Sheriff Peel suggested that Mr. Hinson have his attorney get the copies. The discussion between Mr. Hinson and Sheriff Peel became more heated and argumentative. Eventually Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy to "charge him $5.00" and started to leave. Mr. Hinson perceived this comment to mean that he was to be charged $5.00 per page or document. Prior to coming to the Sheriff's office to obtain copies of the documents in his file, Mr. Hinson had telephoned the Sheriff's office and had been told that there was a $2.00 copying charge. Two dollars is, in fact, what the Sheriff's office normally charges for copying documents. Mr. Hinson believed, therefore, that he would be charged $2.00 per document or a total of $4.00 for the documents he had requested. When Mr. Hinson heard the Sheriff indicate that he was to be charged $5.00, he became angry because he believed that Sheriff Peel was suggesting that he be charged $5.00 per copy or $5.00 per page. Such a charge was inconsistent with what he had been previously told about copying charges. Mr. Hinson incorrectly believed that Sheriff Peel was going to charge him the higher rate for copying because he had a Maryland drivers' license and was, therefore, apparently not from Washington County. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel by stating that he had been told that the copying charge was only $2.00 a copy. Sheriff Peel, if he had meant to charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00 as suggested during the final hearing, did not clarify that he was only going to charge him a total of $5.00 instead of $5.00 per copy as Mr. Hinson apparently believed. The failure to clarify what he meant, and the fact that Sheriff Peel did not know how many documents were actually involved, support the conclusion that Sheriff Peel did not intend that Ms. Bellamy merely charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00. Of greater importance, these facts explain Mr. Hinson's confusion and anger. He reasonably believed he was going to be overcharged. Some time after Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel about the $5.00 charge, Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy not to give Mr. Hinson anything. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel, although he did not know at the time that he was the Sheriff, and asked him "what's the problem." Mr. Hinson also asked for the person in charge of "internal affairs", stating that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that the Sheriff's Office did not have an "internal affairs" department, that he was the Sheriff, and that he would not take a complaint against himself. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has no written policy for handling complaints against personnel. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has an informal, unwritten policy for handling complaints. Sheriff Peel makes the final decision concerning complaints. At some time shortly after Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson began to argue, Captain Jenkins came to the door opening to the lobby from the room that he had been in. Initially, Captain Jenkins stood watching the discussion. Because of the smallness of the room, Captain Jenkins was relatively close to Mr. Hinson. After Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that there was no internal affairs department and that he would not take a complaint against himself, Captain Jenkins stated "I'm internal affairs this week. What's the problem?" or a statement to that effect. Although Captain Jenkins testified that he made the comment to try to diffuse the situation by injecting some humor into the situation, the weight of the evidence does not support this explanation. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the comment was made in a snide and sarcastic manner. Mr. Hinson was being rude and confrontational. Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson were engaged in a somewhat heated argument. Mr. Hinson was obviously angry. To make such a statement to a person in this type situation evidenced a failure to exercise good judgement. The statement was intended to rebuke and insult Mr. Hinson. Mr. Hinson demanded that Captain Jenkins identify himself, which he did. Mr. Hinson told Captain Jenkins that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Captain Jenkins told him that he would not take a complaint against the Sheriff. Captain Jenkins told Mr. Hinson that it would be better if he left the office. It was apparent to Mr. Hinson that nothing more could come of the confrontation with Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins. Sheriff Peel had ordered that nothing be given to Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins had refused to take a complaint. It had been suggested that he leave. Mr. Hinson felt intimidated. Captain Jenkins is 6'1" and weighs approximately 225 pounds while Mr. Hinson is slightly built in comparison. There was nothing to be gained by continued argument and, therefore, Mr. Hinson left. Mr. Hinson was not intoxicated or taking medication at the time of his visit to the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor with Ms. Bellamy was defensive and confrontational. Mr. Hinson's displeasure over his arrest and his attitude were perceived as rudeness by Ms. Bellamy. Although Mr. Hinson did not yell or use profanity, as described by Ms. Bellamy, Mr. Hinson "had an attitude". These findings are based in large part upon the testimony of Ms. Bellamy, Pam Miner (the Sheriff's secretary) and David Corbin, the Director of Washington County Parks and Recreation. Mr. Corbin was in the lobby during the confrontation. Although Ms. Bellamy and Ms. Miner are employed by Sheriff Peel, and the fact that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid in her testimony, the crucial elements of the testimony of the Respondents and these witnesses were consistent. It is difficult to categorize the degree of Mr. Hinson's rudeness. All of the witnesses agreed Mr. Hinson was rude and confrontational. His rudeness and attitude were not, however, so severe that Ms. Bellamy did not believe that she could handle Mr. Hinson. Nor did Ms. Bellamy ever feel threatened by Mr. Hinson. She did not request any assistance from Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins, both of whom were in adjoining offices. Nor was Mr. Hinson's attitude and treatment of Ms. Bellamy sufficiently troublesome to cause Captain Jenkins, who could hear the discussion between Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson, to come out to assist Ms. Bellamy until after Sheriff Peel had intervened. Finally, Ms. Bellamy left the lobby during the confrontation to prepare to go to lunch, not something that would be expected of someone witnessing an overly serious confrontation. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins did not yell at Mr. Hinson. Nor did they laugh at Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel did, however, become angry and argumentative with Mr. Hinson. The situation could have been ended by simply allowing Ms. Bellamy to provide the copies of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, which had already been made. Captain Jenkins was sarcastic with Mr. Hinson and, to some degree, because of his size, intimidating to Mr. Hinson. Captain Jenkins' comment to Mr. Hinson, although sarcastic, was not threatening. Mr. Hinson, based upon 20-20 hindsight, was not a threat to anybody in the Sheriff's offices. This is not to say, however, that Mr. Hinson should have been taken lightly or that Mr. Hinson's conduct should have been totally accepted and tolerated by Sheriff Peel. Nor can it be concluded that Captain Jenkins should have totally ignored what was going on. Effort to Secure a Special Privilege, Benefit, or Exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the failure to have a written complaint procedure in place in the Washington County Sheriff's Office was intended by Sheriff Peel to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Mr. Hinson, after telephoning the Florida Sheriff's Association, was informed that he could pick up a copy of the documents he wanted at the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson also could have obtained a copy of the documents he wanted by having someone else, including his attorney, pick them up or by requesting a copy of the documents from the clerk of court's office. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices without obtaining a copy of the documents he had requested in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Any funds collected for copying by the Sheriff's Office are funds of Washington County. Sheriff Peel has no control or direct use of those funds. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to charge $5.00 for the copies in an effort to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins' actions were intended to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. At worst, the evidence proved that Sheriff Peel, arguably, could have exercised a little more patience and that Captain Jenkins made a smart remark at an inappropriate time. These actions, in light of Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor, do not support a conclusion that Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins were attempting to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for themselves or others. The actions of all those involved in this situation were emotional reactions to the situation and were not calculated to achieve any particular result.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report dismissing Complaint No. 91-42 and Complaint No. 91-43. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection A. 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 5. 4 6. 5 7. B. 1 9. 2 10. C. 1 23. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. D. 1 28-30. 2 29. 3 30. E. 1 13. 2 36. 3 14 and 23. 4 14-15. 5 14. 6 17 and hereby accepted. 7 See 37. 8 See 37-38 and 40. Ms. Bellamy's relationship to the Respondents has been considered. While it is true that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Bellamy's testimony was materially flawed, especially in light of the testimony of other witnesses. 9-10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 See 41. The evidence failed to prove that "no reasonable person could have perceived Mr. Hinson as posing such a danger." Such a conclusion can only be made with 20-20 hindsight. 11a-b 38. 11c 19. 11c 31 and 38. 12 20-21 13 21 and see 26. 14 27. 15 28. 16 Not relevant. 17 22. 18 22-24. 19 25. 20 See 31. 21-22 32. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 22 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 23 33. 24 34. 25 35. See 35. See 37-40. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 25. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9. 2 See 11. 3 13-14. 4 15 and 17-19. 19, 21 and 37-38. The allegations concerning whether Mr. Hinson became "loud" are rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 27. The evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel "explained to Hinson that he had a small office" in an effort to explain why he did not have an internal affairs department. The Respondents' suggestion that Mr. Hinson was out of control is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 31 and 33. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins suggested that Mr. Hinson go to the State Attorney's office if he wanted to file a complaint. See 22. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was aware of how many pages were to be copied, that Mr. Hinson left after being told that the charge was $5.00 or that Mr. Hinson was not told to leave. 23 and hereby accepted. 10 16, 18 and 23. 11 45. 12 28-30. See 31. Hereby accepted. See 47. The last two sentences are not relevant. 16 See 24-25, 38-39 and 48. 17 42. 18 See 12. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19-24 Although portions of these proposed findings of fact are true, the ultimate findings of fact suggested by these proposed facts are not supported by the weight of the evidence. For example, although it is true that Mr. Hinson admitted that he had a bad memory, the essential elements of his testimony were credible. 25 41-47. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William E. Powers, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission On Ethics The Capitol Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 29, 2001, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 2000056. Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick are Respondent's brothers. Respondent has lived in the same residence as her brother Javeres her entire life. Since February of 1999, when they were placed on probation for committing the felony crime of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 years of age, Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick have been under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). On or about November 27, 2000, Respondent completed and submitted to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a Correctional Officer/Correctional Probation Officer Supplemental Application. At the time, she did not have any training or experience as correctional or probation officer. Question 4 on this employment application asked: Do you have a business or personal relationship with anyone presently incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system? If yes, give name, relationship, and place of incarceration/supervision. Respondent answered this question by checking "No." In doing so, she believed that she was providing accurate information to DOC. Although she was aware that her brothers were on probation, she did not understand them to be "incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system," within the meaning of the question, because they were not in state prison. Furthermore, in her mind, she had a familial, not a "business or personal relationship" with her brothers.3 Respondent was ultimately employed by DOC as a correctional officer and assigned to Broward Correctional Institution (BCI). On September 18, 2003, a team of DOC correctional probation officers (Team), consisting of Raul Fernandez, Sara Bermudez, and Juan D'Elia, accompanied by local law enforcement officers, including David Torres of the Miami-Dade County Police Department, went to the residence of Javeres Kendrick at 4270 Northwest 197th Street, Miami, Florida, to conduct a "pre- planned sex offender compliance check." The purpose of the Team's visit was to ascertain whether Mr. Kendrick was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. When the Team arrived at the residence, Mr. Kendrick was outside washing a vehicle. The Team members exited their vehicles and walked up to Mr. Kendrick. They identified themselves as correctional probation officers and told Mr. Kendrick that they were there to make sure that he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. To do so, they advised him, they needed to search his bedroom (which they were authorized to do by the court order placing Mr. Kendrick on probation). Mr. Kendrick responded that his bedroom was "a mess" and that he wanted "to go and clean [it] up" before the Team conducted its search. Despite being told that he "couldn't do that," Mr. Kendrick "bolted" away from the Team members and went "inside the house." Officers Fernandez and D'Elia followed Mr. Kendrick to the front door of the residence, where they were met by Respondent, who "intercepted" them and blocked their paths, thereby "prohibit[ing] [them] from entering [the residence] immediately." While standing in their way and interrupting their pursuit of Mr. Kendrick, Respondent, using profanity, yelled at Officers Fernandez and D'Elia in a "hostile and belligerent" manner, expressing her strong displeasure over their presence at the residence. She told them that they "had no right to be there," adding that "every time [they] show[ed] up there [they] always w[ound] up arresting her brother."4 Respondent was asked at least twice to "please move," which she finally did, albeit "in a very slow and deliberate manner." Officer Fernandez instructed Respondent to "take the children out of the residence and to wait outside until [the Team] conducted [its] search." With Respondent out of the way, Officer Fernandez and D'Elia entered the residence. Officer D'Elia spotted Mr. Kendrick "in the second bedroom on the left." Mr. Kendrick had his hand in a chest drawer. While Officer D'Elia "secured" Mr. Kendrick, Officer Fernandez searched the drawer and found "paraphernalia used for the pack[ag]ing of narcotics" and baggies containing what appeared to be cocaine and marijuana. After this discovery was made, Respondent came into the bedroom (contrary to the instructions she had been given) and asked "how much longer [the Team] had left." A conversation between Officer Fernandez and Respondent ensued, during which Officer Fernandez informed Respondent about "the narcotics that were in the drawer." Upon being so informed, Respondent, with the intent to deceive the Team, falsely claimed that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found was not her bother Javeres' bedroom. Rather, she told Officer Fernandez and the other Team members, the bedroom had last been occupied by her uncle, who "had wound up going to jail." As the Team was leading him away from the residence, Mr. Kendrick asked Respondent to "retrieve" for him from "his room" a pair of pants, socks, and tennis shoes that he could wear in jail. Complying with this request, Respondent, followed by Officer Bermudez, went straight to the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found (which was Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, contrary to what Respondent had previously claimed) and "retrieve[d]" the items her brother had requested. During her dealings with the Team that day, Respondent revealed that she was a correctional officer at BCI. Upon returning to his office, after having "finished processing Mr. Kendrick and logging in the evidence" seized from Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, Officer Fernandez complained to his supervisor about Respondent's hostile and obstructive conduct during the Team's "compliance check" at Mr. Kendrick's residence earlier that day. Inasmuch as Respondent was a DOC employee, Officer Fernandez's supervisor referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation pursuant to DOC policy. Scott Thomas, a senior prison inspector with DOC, conducted the investigation. As part of his investigation, Inspector Thomas reviewed the contents of Respondent's DOC personnel file (including the employment application she had submitted on November 27, 2000) and obtained sworn affidavits from Officers Fernandez, Bermudez, and D'Elia. In addition, on November 12, 2003, he interviewed Respondent under oath. During the interview, among other things, Respondent repeated the falsehood that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" was not her brother Javeres' bedroom. In addition, she falsely denied ever having used "profanity towards the [Team] members" conducting the "compliance check" and further falsely denied that that the Team members, during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check," ever told her to "wait outside the house." Respondent made these statements to Inspector Thomas knowing that they were not true. Inspector Thomas determined from his investigation that Respondent had "provided untruthful information" on her November 27, 2000, employment application and that she had engaged in "conduct unbecoming" a DOC employee during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" at her residence. Based on the findings of Inspector Thomas' investigation, Respondent's employment with DOC was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegation Two and Three and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 21st day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent unlawfully and knowingly possessed a controlled substance and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1986, the Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and was issued Certificate No. 03-86-502- 05. Later that year, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Office at the Broward Correctional Institution. The Broward Correctional Institution is a state prison that houses female prisoners. The Respondent's duties included working inside the prison and working on the perimeter posts. While on perimeter post, the Correction Officers, including the Respondent, would sit in a small car with a loaded 12-guage shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver. The primary function of the perimeter post is to observe the fences of the prison to insure that there is no unauthorized entry into or exit from the prison. On several occasions the Respondent openly discussed with other Correctional Officers the fact that the Respondent used marijuana. On at least one occasion, the Respondent told another Correctional Officer that she (the Respondent) had reported for duty inside the prison with marijuana "joints" in her purse. On another occasion a Correctional Officer who relieved the Respondent on perimeter post smelled what seemed to be the odor of marijuana smoke and observed what appeared to be the remains of a marijuana cigarette. On yet another occasion the Respondent offered to provide marijuana to another Correctional Officer who worked on the same shift. One of the Correctional Officers who worked with the Respondent became concerned about what she had heard and seen regarding the Respondent's use of marijuana and reported her concerns to higher authority at the prison. As a result of such report, on the evening of November 16, 1989, two prison officials approached the Respondent during her break. At that time the Respondent was sitting in her personal vehicle in the prison parking lot. The prison officials requested and received permission to search the Respondent's vehicle. A Marlboro cigarette box containing what appeared to be a partially smoked, hand-rolled marijuana cigarette was found underneath the driver's seat of the Respondent's vehicle. The hand-rolled cigarette found in the Respondent's vehicle tested positive for marijuana. The Respondent was arrested on a charge of introduction of contraband into a state correctional institution. The Respondent later pled guilty and was found guilty of the lesser included charge of possession of marijuana, less that 20 grams.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statues, and Rule 11B- 27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, and imposing a penalty of revocation of the Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of August 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' stipulations, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October 13, 1981, certified by the Commission as a correctional officer. She holds certificate number 3-81- 5000-00. At the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer with the Broward County Sheriff's Department (hereinafter referred to as "BSO"). On November 9, 1989, Lieutenant Charles Bass of the Davie Fire Department and other Davie Fire Department personnel were dispatched to a residence located at 13710 Southwest 36th Court in Davie, Florida, to respond to a report of a gasoline spill inside the structure. When Lieutenant Bass arrived on the scene, he was met outside the residence by Respondent, who identified herself as the owner and a resident of the home. Respondent told Lieutenant Bass that, upon returning home that day, she had discovered that someone had apparently entered the residence during her absence and spilled gasoline on the carpeting. In view of the information with which he had been provided, Lieutenant Bass contacted the BSO Bomb and Arson squad, as well as the Davie Police Department, to request that a criminal investigation be initiated. After having done so, he entered the home and found that the living room carpeting was saturated with gasoline. To reduce the danger of an explosion or fire, it was necessary to remove the gasoline-saturated carpeting from the home. Before this could be accomplished, however, the furniture that was on the carpeting had to be moved. One of the pieces of living room furniture that Lieutenant Bass and his colleagues had to move was a recliner. Under the recliner was an ashtray that contained the remnants of two hand-rolled, unfiltered cigarettes. Lieutenant Bass noticed the ashtray and its contents when the recliner was lifted off the floor. He thought that, given their appearance, the cigarette remains in the ashtray might possibly contain marijuana. He therefore brought the matter to the attention of the law enforcement officers who had arrived on the scene. One of these law enforcement officers was Detective Wayne Boulier of the Davie Police Department, who had extensive training and experience in the identification of illegal substances. Detective Boulier, based upon his visual inspection of the cigarette remains in the ashtray, believed that they contained marijuana. He then field-tested the cigarette remains using a Valtox disposal kit. The results were positive for the presence of cannabis. Detective Boulier then confiscated the cigarette remains. When he returned to police headquarters, he placed the suspected contraband in the police property room. Before completing his report of the incident, Detective Boulier interviewed various people, including Respondent. In his completed report, Detective Boulier noted that marijuana had been found in Respondent's home. A copy of the report was sent to BSO, Respondent's employer. On December 11, 1989, after reviewing the report, Lieutenant Mike Ryan, the Executive Officer of BSO's Internal Affairs Division, assigned Detective Carol Dansky, one of his subordinates, to investigate the matter. Detective Dansky was instructed to contact Respondent and inquire if she would undergo urinalysis testing. Detective Dansky and Respondent were acquaintances. They had previously worked together in BSO's Internal Affairs Division. The same day that she was assigned the case Detective Dansky telephoned Respondent at the detention facility at which Respondent was working and asked Respondent to report to the Internal Affairs Division office to see her as soon as possible. Detective Dansky did not volunteer why she wanted to meet with Respondent and Respondent did not ask Detective Dansky to explain the purpose of the proposed meeting. Respondent complied with Detective Dansky's request and reported to the Internal Affairs Division office later that day. Detective Dansky informed Respondent of the report that had been received from the Davie Police Department regarding the discovery of marijuana in Respondent's home and that, as a result of this report, BSO's Internal Affairs Division was requesting 2/ that Respondent provide a urine sample for drug testing. Respondent freely and voluntarily consented to provide Detective Dansky with the requested urine sample. She indicated to Detective Dansky that she was in a hurry and wanted to get the matter over with quickly. Urine samples collected by BSO's Internal Affairs Division were tested and analyzed by Metpath Laboratories (hereinafter referred to as "Metpath"). 3/ Metpath provided BSO with sterile containers for the storage of the samples, 4/ as well as identifying labels and forms which were to be filled out and sent with the samples. Detective Dansky went to where these materials were kept and obtained a sterile container and the requisite form and labels. She also obtained from this area some food coloring and a clean styrofoam cup that, by all appearances, had not been used previously. Detective Dansky then walked with Respondent to the ladies' room. Upon entering the ladies' room, Detective Dansky went into one of the stalls and placed food coloring in the toilet bowl, after which she went to the sink in the ladies' room to wash her hands. While Detective Dansky was washing her hands, Respondent went into the stall that Detective Dansky had vacated and urinated into the clean styrofoam cup that Detective Dansky had given to her for that purpose. Respondent came out of the stall holding the styrofoam cup containing her urine sample in her hand. She then poured the urine sample from the styrofoam cup into the Metpath-provided sterile container. After the styrofoam cup was emptied, it was discarded in the waste basket in the ladies' room. Detective Dansky promptly sealed the container into which Respondent's urine sample had been poured. The container was sealed in a manner that made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. Taking the sealed container with her, Detective Dansky, accompanied by Respondent, walked back to her office. In her office, Detective Dansky filled out a Metpath Drug Screen Test Requisition (Chain of Custody) form. On the line on the form where the "Patient Donor Signature" was supposed to be placed, Respondent, consistent with accepted BSO practice and policy designed to protect the confidentiality of test results, instead put her initials, as well as her BSO computer control number, 2559. After the form was completed, Detective Dansky placed green labels, each bearing the same unique identifying number, on the form and the sealed container. She then put the completed form and the container in an envelope. The envelope was stored in a refrigerator until it was picked up by a courier. The envelope was delivered to Metpath's forensic laboratory later in the day on December 11, 1989. The sealed container with Respondent's urine sample was received in good condition without any evidence of tampering. At the laboratory, the sample was kept in a secure manner throughout the testing process. Adequate procedures were employed to ensure that the sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that there had not been any tampering with the sample. An initial immunoassay screening of Respondent's urine sample indicated the presumptive presence of the unique metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is produced when marijuana is ingested and metabolized in the body. Additional laboratory testing of the sample was then performed to verify the results of the immunoassay screen previously performed. Gas chromotography-mass spectrometry, the most reliable and accurate confirmatory testing method currently available, was utilized. The gas chromotography-mass spectrometry analysis of Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of the THC metabolite in a concentration of 27 micrograms per liter. 5/ The microgram per liter results of the testing are consistent with, and indicative of, Respondent's knowing and voluntary ingestion of marijuana prior to the collection of her urine sample. Passive inhalation of another's secondhand marijuana smoke would produce much lower results. BSO's Internal Affairs Division received the results of the testing on December 15, 1989. On December 20, 1989, Detective Dansky took a statement from Respondent. In her statement, Respondent willfully and knowingly provided false information when she denied using marijuana. Respondent also denied that Detective Boulier had informed her that marijuana had been found in her home. BSO eventually terminated Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent had engaged in the illegal use of drugs and had provided false information during an internal investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to prove that Respondent is guilty, as charged, of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, and (2) revoking her certification as a correctional officer as punishment therefor. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of August, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by unlawfully acquiring or obtaining, or attempting to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge on or about July 16, 1999; by unlawfully withholding information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance on or between April 1, 1999, and August 5, 1999; by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself or others, to wit: prepared a fictitious Offense/Incident Report as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tad K. Moody, is a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 160029 on February 11, 1996. Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police officer during the period February 11, 1996, through May 19, 2000. In August of 1998, Respondent received an on-duty injury and was prescribed pain medications as a result. Respondent signed a contract with Dr. Greenberger stating that he would only receive controlled substances from Dr. Greenberger. Respondent went to several different doctors after August 1998 and received prescription pain medications from all of them. Respondent never advised his treating physicians that he was receiving Hydrocodone or other pain medication from each of his treating physicians. Respondent did not inform any of the physicians that he was receiving prescription pain medications from any of the other physicians. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent reported to his treating physician’s office that his vehicle was stolen with his medication in it. Dr. Batas required substantiation of the theft in the form of an auto theft report prior to issuing additional medication. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent prepared a false Tampa Police Department Offense/Incident Report, reporting that his vehicle containing medications had been stolen. He submitted it to Dr. Batas' office in order to receive additional medication. On August 4, 1999, Respondent presented a prescription for 90 Vicoprofen to the Eckerd Drug Store pharmacy at 1904 West Lumsden in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Steven J. Tresser, M.D., had written Respondent a prescription on August 4, 1999, for 40, not 90, Vicoprofen. The Eckerd Drug Store personnel identified Respondent as the individual who submitted the altered prescription for Vicoprofen or Hydrocodone. Respondent admitted to Detective Lusczynski, during an interview, that he had an addiction problem due to the back pain he suffered as a result of the injury he received in 1998. In late 1999, Respondent was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. On or about July 24, 2000, Respondent entered into a Drug Court Agreement for 18 months' probation with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's State Attorney's Office. As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to successfully complete the Drug Court Program, including evaluation; counseling; random urinalysis; and pay $372 court costs, plus $40 a month toward supervision. Respondent's drug case was dismissed on March 14, 2002, based on his successful completion of the Drug Court Program. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully acquired possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation on or about July 16, 1999. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance during the relevant time period. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent corruptly used, or attempted to use, his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself by preparing a fictitious Offense/Incident Report on or about July 16, 1999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tad K. Moody 10124 Woodberry Road Tampa, Florida 33619 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services 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 The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 10, 1990 and issued certificate number 05-89-502- 09. On May 30, 1990, Apalachee Correctional Institution Assistant Superintendent for Operations Joe W. "Bill" Davis, the chief corrections officer, received information to the effect that the Respondent possessed marijuana in his bachelor officer's quarters (BOQ) on the grounds of the Apalachee Correctional Institution, Jackson County, Florida at that time. Mr. Davis thereupon contacted Jackson County Sheriff's office investigator, Lieutenant Robby Wester, to assist him in an investigation of this report. Both Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester made contact with the Respondent at the BOQ in the afternoon of May 30, 1990. The investigating officers received the Respondent's permission to conduct a search of his quarters on that day. During the search of his quarters Mr. Davis discovered and seized a small amount of marijuana and two photographs of marijuana from a piece of furniture which was located next to the Respondent's bed. Lt. Wester spoke with the Respondent shortly after the seizure of the marijuana from the Respondent's room. The Respondent told Lt. Wester that the Respondent had been "tipped off" about the search two hours prior to the arrival of Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester and that he had destroyed five bags of marijuana which he had possessed in the Respondent's residence. The Respondent also admitted he had previously smoked marijuana but was drug free on this occasion, May 30, 1990. The marijuana (cannabis) which was seized by Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester from the Respondent's room was submitted to the FDLE crime laboratory, was analyzed and proved to be cannabis. As a result of the discovery of the marijuana in the Respondent's room the Respondent was charged by Lt. Wester with possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Lt. Wester did not arrest the Respondent on May 30, 1990 but told him to appear in court the following day. The Respondent, pursuant to notice to appear, appeared before the county court in Jackson County, Florida and in mid-July agreed to conditions of an order of pretrial intervention. The Respondent however failed to fulfill the conditions of the pretrial intervention order and was returned to the jurisdiction of the county court for the marijuana possession charge originally filed. The Respondent thereupon entered a plea of guilty to the marijuana possession charge on February 4, 1991. Judge Hatcher of the county court adjudged the Respondent guilty of the marijuana possession charge at issue herein and ordered the Respondent to be incarcerated, to pay certain costs, and to participate in a public works program. The Respondent was incarcerated at the Jackson County, Florida jail from February 4, 1991 through March 20, 1991 on the marijuana possession charge at issue in this proceeding. He has completed service of his incarceration time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission revoking the certification of the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Richter. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Respondent presented no Findings of Fact) 1. - 14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Rockenstein, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey S. Richter 3881 Highway 273 Graceville, FL 32440 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
