Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. Respondent was issued certificate number 02-7330 on March 30, 1973. There was no evidence that Respondent's certification had been the subject of any other disciplinary proceeding. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Bal Harbour, which is a municipality located in Dade County, Florida. The following events occurred in Bal Harbour, Florida, on January 14, 1989, while Respondent was on duty as a police officer: A few minutes past 7:00 a.m., Respondent encountered a 1975 Plymouth that had broken down on Collins Avenue near its intersection with 102 Street. Respondent observed a young male (who he later learned was 17 year old Haroon Nabee) pushing this disabled car by himself trying to get the car off the street and into an adjacent parking lot. Mr. Nabee was pushing the car with one hand and steering it with his other. Respondent assisted Mr. Nabee by pushing the disabled car from the rear with his patrol car. After the disabled car and Respondent's patrol car were in the parking lot, Respondent asked Mr. Nabee his name and asked to see his registration and his drivers license. Mr. Nabee identified himself as Nevin Maharaj and showed Respondent a registration certificate that reflected that the car was registered in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Stein. Respondent later learned that Mrs. Stein was Mr. Nabee's sister. While Mr. Nabee looked through his wallet for his drivers license, Respondent observed two credit cards in the name of John J. Mendoza. When asked about the credit cards, Mr. Nabee reported that he had found them. Respondent became suspicious and requested a backup. In response to that request Officer Pamela Robinson Adlet (at the formal hearing, Officer Adlet had reverted to the use of Robinson as her last name) appeared on the scene at 7:20 a.m. After Officer Adlet arrived on the scene, Respondent placed Mr. Nabee under arrest, handcuffed his hands behind his back, searched him, and placed him in the back seat of Respondent's caged patrol car. Respondent then called for a tow truck and requested that Officer Adlet assist him in conducting an inventory of the automobile. The officers inventoried the interior of the automobile, but they could not gain access to the trunk. Because the rear seat was loose, Officer Adlet could observe objects in the trunk, but she was unable to inventory those objects because of her limited access. While waiting for the tow truck, Respondent returned to his patrol car, which was parked immediately behind the disabled vehicle, and began making out the arrest form using the false name Mr. Nabee had given him. Respondent had partially completed the arrest form when the tow truck arrived. Because his patrol car was blocking the tow truck's access to the disabled vehicle, Respondent drove the patrol car to a spot approximately thirty feet from the disabled vehicle. Respondent then walked from his patrol car towards the tow truck and he and Officer Adlet engaged in a brief conversation with the tow truck driver. Officer Adlet told the driver that she and Respondent wanted to get into the trunk of the disabled vehicle and asked if he had a screwdriver they could use for that purpose. 1/ Respondent decided to look into the glove box of the disabled vehicle for the second time because his earlier search of the vehicle had been interrupted by his efforts to help Officer Adlet gain access to the trunk. Respondent found in the glove box a passport which reflected Mr. Nabee's true name and which contained Mr. Nabee's photograph. Respondent showed the passport to Officer Adlet, who confirmed that the passport photograph appeared to be of Mr. Nabee. Respondent returned to his patrol car and began addressing Mr. Nabee in loud, profane language and accused Mr. Nabee of lying to him. Respondent opened the rear door of the patrol car on the driver's side and, while holding the passport in his clenched right hand, made three punching motions with his right hand in the direction of Mr. Nabee. With the first of these three blows the back of Respondent's right hand made contact with the right side of Mr. Nabee's face. (The right side of Mr. Nabee's face was struck because Mr. Nabee had turned towards Respondent when Respondent opened the door of the patrol car.) In reaction to that blow, Mr. Nabee stretched out on the back seat of the patrol car, and, consequently, the other two blows did not make contact with Mr. Nabee. Thereafter, Respondent transported Mr. Nabee to the Bal Harbour police station where Mr. Nabee complained to another officer about Respondent's acts. Mr. Nabee was not injured by Respondent. There was no evidence that he suffered any cut or bruise as a result of the contact with Respondent. Respondent was angry with Mr. Nabee because he had lied about his name, which caused Respondent to have to redraft his arrest form. Respondent contends that the contact was accidental and was a result of his gesticulating in an angry fashion after learning that Mr. Nabee had lied to him. This contention is rejected. Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was angry with Mr. Nabee and that Respondent intentionally struck Mr. Nabee in retaliation for Mr. Nabee's lying to him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent committed a battery upon the person of Haroon Nabee on January 14, 1989, which determines, pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, and which suspends his certification as a law enforcement for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of July, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1991.
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that the Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner on April 1, 1978. He holds certificate number 99-002304. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with enforcing the qualification and practice standards for law enforcement officers embodied in Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. Sometime in November, 1986, Diane Bouchard was traveling north on U.S. 1 in Nassau County. She acknowledged that she was traveling in excess of the lawful speed limit and believes she was traveling at approximately 60 miles per hour. Shortly after passing a truck weighing station, she observed a Nassau County Sheriff's patrol car, which had just passed her, turn around and follow her. She observed the blue light on that vehicle illuminate, at which point she turned to the side of the road and stopped. Mrs. Bouchard knew Officer Crews and he was acquainted with her and her family, including her husband. Mrs. Bouchard testified that Respondent got out of his patrol car and approached her vehicle while she was sitting in her parked vehicle behind the wheel. He did not ask her to get out of the vehicle. She says that he asked for her driver's license and she complied, handing Respondent her license. Mrs. Bouchard then testified that Respondent, while standing approximately 4 inches from her car door, told her that he had "clocked" her speed at approximately 75 miles per hour. He remarked that there was an $80 fine for such a traffic infraction and "points" which could be assessed against her driving record for a speeding violation. She stated that while he was standing next to her car door making these remarks, he began rubbing his penis through his clothing, becoming visibly sexually aroused. At approximately this same time, Mrs. Bouchard states that the Respondent told her that "we could work something out" regarding the ticket. Mrs. Bouchard then testified that the Respondent's actions and statement were taken by her to mean that he was attempting to extort sexual favors from her in return for forbearing to issue her a traffic citation. She maintains that she became extremely frightened as a result of these actions and attempted to dissuade the Respondent by reminding him that he knew her family. She maintains that the Respondent then stood alternately looking at her and looking at her driver's license for several more minutes and then announced that he was going to "let her go." She then drove home, according to her statement. Mrs. Bouchard maintains that she became very upset at this episode and was particularly sensitive to being victimized in this way because she had been sexually abused for approximately 13 years by her stepfather, even after she was married. She was reluctant to reveal the incident to her husband, but because she began having nightmares about the incident her husband became concerned, and so she told him about the episode approximately a week after the accident. She felt, however, according to her testimony, that no one would believe her if she reported the incident to law enforcement authorities. Approximately three months after the incident, however, she did report the matter to personnel of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department. The alleged incident supposedly occurred in close proximity to a truck weighing station at which a law enforcement officer was present and in close proximity, in the other direction, to a public campground. The incident occurred during daylight hours at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. on U.S. 1, a heavily traveled highway in Nassau County. The weigh station and campground are approximately a quarter of a mile apart. A Department of Transportation patrol car was at the weigh station and both the weigh station and the campground were in sight of the place where Mrs. Bouchard was allegedly stopped. Officer Crews was in uniform in a marked, Nassau County Sheriff's Patrol car. Mrs. Bouchard conceded that she had been speeding when she was pulled over and that Officer Crews never asked her to get out of her car. She conceded that he did not threaten her, touch her or actually expose himself to her. He did not write her a ticket. Mrs. Bouchard testified the reason she thought Officer Crews was "coming on" to her was because she associated certain gestures he was making with things her stepfather had done to her in the past. Mrs. Bouchard was referring to the history of sexual molestation of herself by her stepfather which she says occurred for an approximate 13-year-period after her mother kidnapped her from her natural father and she went to live with her mother and stepfather. During this time period and during the time in which Mrs. Bouchard elected not to report this alleged conduct by the Respondent, she and her husband were working at a garage that serviced Sheriff department vehicles and at which another police officer was employed. Police officers were frequent visitors to the garage, but she waited over three months before she spoke to anyone in law enforcement concerning this incident. Captain Chuck Moser of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department testified on behalf of the Petitioner. He interviewed Mrs. Bouchard on January 6, 1987. She told him that the above-described incident had occurred approximately 3 months earlier. She described the incident to Captain Moser much in the same way in which she described it in her testimony at hearing. Captain Moser did not reveal any other knowledge concerning the incident in question, and the Respondent, other than what Mrs. Bouchard had told him. Fuller Crews testified on his own behalf. He is 58 years old and has been married for the past 16 years. He was employed by the Nassau County Sheriff's Department from April 1, 1978 to November 10, 1987. In 1986, he was a lieutenant in the civil division and a traffic patrolman. He knows Mrs. Bouchard and her family and has even been fishing with her husband. In his work with the Sheriff's office, he has made several hundred traffic stops during his career. He does not remember every person that he ever stopped for a traffic infraction, nor did he make a practice of issuing a traffic citation to every person he stopped. Officer Crews often simply told offenders that he would let them go if they promised to slow down, or otherwise warned them with a lecture, depending upon the particular offender's attitude. He has no recollection of stopping Mrs. Bouchard, but does not deny that he may have done so. He adamantly denies ever asking Mrs. Bouchard for sex in exchange for forbearing giving her a traffic citation or making gestures which implied that intent. He stated that if he made any gestures in the act of getting out of his car and walking up to Mrs. Bouchard's car, it would have been in the nature of adjusting his gun belt or brushing his cigarette ashes off his trousers. The testimony of the Respondent and Mrs. Bouchard thus conflicts. There were no other witnesses to the episode. It is found that, even if Mrs. Bouchard did indeed feel that the Respondent was making sexual advances to her in return for his refraining from writing her a traffic citation, that her impression was mistaken. In reaching this finding, the Hearing Officer is mindful of the Respondent's apparent sincerity and candid demeanor on the witness stand, his past unblemished record, including his apparent record as a decent citizen and family man, as well as the unrebutted testimony concerning his past friendly relations with Mrs. Bouchard and her family. Mrs. Bouchard, on the other hand, while she may not have overtly lied about the circumstances of the incident, was mistaken in her impression of the Respondent's demeanor and intent in confronting her about the traffic infraction. It is found, based in part of Mrs. Bouchard's own testimony, that her impression of the Officer's intent in approaching her and manner of conversing with her, during this episode, was affected by her admitted past history of being sexually molested for a long period of time by her stepfather, such that she quite likely could have mistakenly associated some gestures, movements and comments made by the officer with a sexual advance or overture, when in fact the Respondent intended no such activity. Thus, Mrs. Bouchard's opinion, however sincere she holds it, is sufficiently colored and affected by her emotional situation, arising out of her past personal history, so that it cannot be considered competent evidence against the Respondent and cannot establish that the incident occurred as she described it. There is no other substantial evidence that would establish that the Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in regard to this incident, which is the only such incident charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Fuller W. Crews, Sr. should be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER NO. 89-1400 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 4 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 7.-17. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence of record. 18. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. White, Esquire Department of Law of Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Robert J. Link, Esquire Howell Lyles and Milton 901 Blackstone Building P.O. Box 420 Jacksonville, FL 32201 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact By application filed with Respondent on August 20, 1980, Petitioner requested that he be licensed as a real estate salesman. Question number six on the application was answered as follows: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Possession of Marijuana in Vero (Approx Aug '74) Fined $102. The application form included the instruction that if an answer to question six was in the affirmative, the applicant should attach his complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were had or are pending. Petitioner attached to his application a statement reading as follows: Approximately August of 1974 I was found guilty of possession of marijuana. The outcome was a fine of $102. I haven't had any dealings with this sort of thing since. (Exhibit 1) By letter of October 31, 1980, Respondent's legal adviser informed Petitioner that the Board of Real Estate had denied his application for licensure based on his answer to question six of the application and his criminal record. (Exhibit 4) On April 20, 1975, Petitioner was arrested by the Vero Beach Police Department on charges of driving while intoxicated and possession of less than five grams of marijuana. On April 22, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of the charges and was fined $302.00 for driving while intoxicated, and his driver's license was suspended for four months. He was fined $102.00 on the charge of possession of marijuana. (Exhibit 2) On February 24, 1979, Petitioner was cited by the Florida State Highway Patrol for having no valid driver's license. (Exhibit 3) The application form filed by Petitioner captions that the applicant must answer every question without evasion and recites the applicant's acknowledgment that every answer to the questions therein "states the truth and full truth concerning the inquiry, so far as known or can be ascertained." The affidavit of the applicant to the application includes the statement that all answers and statements therein are true and correct, "and are as complete as h knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." (Exhibit 1) Petitioner testified at the hearing and admitted the fact of his 1975 arrest and conviction in Vero Beach, Florida. He also admitted being cited for not having a valid driver's license in 1979, but claimed that this charge was dismissed when he subsequently produced his driver's license to law enforcement authorities. During the course of his testimony, Petitioner also admitted being convicted of driving while intoxicated while in Michigan in 1968 or 1969 for which he was fined $175.00 and received a suspension of his driver's license for a period of six months. He testified that he did not list the DWI convictions on his application form because he believed that they constituted traffic offenses which need not be disclosed. His testimony is not deemed credible in this respect. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 10 day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 10th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jeffrey Miller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Real Estate The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Chandler Post Office Box 406 2000 Baird Street Roseland, Florida 32957 Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a nolo contendere plea by Petitioner, Daniel Banks, to possession of a controlled substance (phenobarbital) in the State of Kansas in 2004 is a disqualifying offense under section 435.04, Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2015 version.)
Findings Of Fact Banks is a 30-year old resident of Northglenn, Colorado. He is currently employed as the coordinator of integrated pest management for MJardin Management Company. Banks is also designated as the research and development director of San Felasco Nurseries, Inc. (“San Felasco”), an applicant to become designated as a low-THC cannabis dispensing organization by the State of Florida. See §§ 381.986, et seq, Fla. Stat. San Felasco filed an application identifying Banks and other owners or managers, all of whom were required to undergo a Level 2 background screening pursuant to section 435.04, Florida Statutes. After Banks’ background information was submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as part of San Felasco’s application, a Level 2 background screening was undertaken by that agency. By letter dated August 7, 2015, OCU notified Banks that they needed more information concerning his arrest on June 3, 2004, and subsequent plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of phenobarbital. In response, Banks had the Clerk of Court for Geary County, Kansas provide a document entitled “Journal Entry” in Case No. 04 CR 294. The Journal Entry is equivalent to a Final Judgment in a Florida criminal court. OCU then notified Banks, via letter dated November 23, 2015, that he had failed to pass his Level 2 background screening. San Felasco was also notified of Banks’ failure to pass, inasmuch as that failure would impact San Felasco’s pending application to be designated as a dispensing organization. Banks’ failure to pass the screening was due to the fact that his nolo contendere plea in Kansas was to a crime OCU deemed similar to a crime enumerated in section 435.04 as a disqualifying offense. The construction of the Kansas and Florida statutes are, indeed, similar. Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 65-4162(a)(1) states in pertinent part: Except as authorized by the uniform controlled substances act, it shall be unlawful for any person to possess or have under such person’s control: Any depressant designated in subsection (e) of K.S.A. 6504105, subsection (e) of K.S.A. 65-4109 or subsection (b) of K.S.A. 65-4111, and amendments thereto. 65-4111(b)(44) lists phenobarbital as one of the depressants designated as a controlled substance. By comparison, Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes, states in relevant part: A person may not be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such person’s controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription. . . . The two statutes are different, however, in the penalties which will inure from violation of the statutes. Section 893.13(6)(a) states that: person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree . . . . K.S.A. 65-4162(b) contains the following penalty language: Except as otherwise provided, any person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a class A nonperson misdemeanor. If any person has a prior conviction under this section, a conviction of a substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction . . . then such person shall be guilty of a drug severity level 4 felony. Thus, the crime in Florida is a felony; in Kansas it is a misdemeanor. Banks came to be in possession of phenobarbital while working at an animal hospital. He was a senior in high school at the time, just two months after reaching the age of 18 years. He stole the phenobarbital from the animal hospital and took it home for his own use. His father found the drugs, confronted Banks with them, and made Banks self-report his theft to the police department. The police notified the doctor at the animal hospital, but she refused to press charges against Banks. Nonetheless, on June 3, 2004, Banks was eventually charged with the crimes of theft of and possession of a controlled substance, to wit: phenobarbital. Both crimes in Kansas at that time were misdemeanors. Pursuant to advice from his attorney, Banks pled nolo contendere to the possession charge in exchange for dismissal of the charge for theft. He was given a suspended sentence, placed on 12 months’ probation and ordered to pay $115.00 in court costs. The theft charge would not have been a disqualifying offense in Florida. A fact taken into consideration by Banks before agreeing to the plea bargain was that the crime was only a misdemeanor. When he was arrested, and when he pled to the charge, Banks did not advise the police that he had previously been arrested and charged with possession of cannabis, a crime enumerated under the same statute (K.S.A. 65-4162) to which he was charged for possessing the phenobarbital. His prior arrest occurred in Riley County, Kansas, on May 7, 2004. He was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and the purchase and consumption of alcohol by a minor. He received a suspended sentence, 12 months’ unsupervised probation, and paid a $250.00 fine in the Riley County matter. The crime was later expunged from Banks’ record. Under K.S.A. 65-4162, the existence of the prior charge just weeks before the Geary County possession of phenobarbital charge could have resulted in the Geary County crime being upgraded to a felony. However, for whatever reason, Banks’ Geary County violation was handled as a first offense and Banks was only found guilty of a misdemeanor.2/ The illegal possession of a controlled substance, in this case phenobarbital, is the similarity tying the Kansas and Florida statutes. In that respect, they are similar. However, the degree of penalty differs greatly between the two states’ laws, at least for a first offense. Following his arrest and nolo contendere plea in Geary County, Banks attempted to rehabilitate his life.3/ He entered college, attending the University of Northern Colorado in 2004 and 2005. He attended Kansas State University in 2005 and 2006. He then took time off from his formal studies to work in various jobs for a few years. He returned to college in 2009, attending and ultimately graduating magna cum laude from Colorado State University in 2012. He has since worked for various organizations in the fields of horticulture and agriculture. That experience led to his current position with San Felasco. There is no doubt Banks’ life following his arrest in 2004 has been successful and devoid of any further criminal activity. He has engaged in activities indicative of a stellar member of society. However, this proceeding is not an “exemption from disqualification” case. If it was, there is little doubt Banks would receive such an exemption based upon his obvious and documented rehabilitation from the 2004 crime. The issue in this case, however, is simply whether the arrest and conviction in Kansas was for a crime similar to a disqualifying offense in Florida and, if so, whether the crime constitutes a disqualifying offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Health, Office of Compassionate Use, finding that Petitioner, Daniel Banks, does not have a disqualifying event in his Level 2 background screening.4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission on February 17, 1988, and was issued certificate No. 03-87-502-08. On October 3, 1988, Metro-Dade Police Officer Jay Rogers was on duty and was dispatched to the Kendall Town and Country Mall to assist the Mall's security officers in clearing the parking lot after a night club closed. Officer Rogers walked up to a group of people, including the Respondent and asked them to finish saying good-bye and leave the parking lot. Officer Rogers then backed off and gave the remaining people in the lot about ten to fifteen minutes to finish saying good-bye. Officer Rogers again approached the group which included the Respondent, and asked that they leave. At that point, the Respondent replied to the officer's request with words to the effect of, "You wait, you can't make us leave, I'm looking for my keys." Officer Rogers asked the Respondent to find her keys, do whatever she needed to do, finish saying good-bye, and to please leave. The Respondent replied with words to the effect of, "I'll leave when I'm ready," and, "You're not telling me what to do." At about this point in the communication between Officer Rogers and the Respondent, an unidentified male approached the Respondent and said words to the effect of, "Come on, let's leave, the officer told us to leave, let's get out of here." The Respondent pushed the unidentified male away, and he got into a vehicle and left. Officer Rogers again asked the Respondent to leave. At some point in the interchange the Respondent replied, "What are you going to do, arrest me?" Eventually, Officer Rogers told the Respondent to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing after warning. The Respondent continued to say that she was not leaving. Officer Rogers thereupon advised the Respondent that she was under arrest for trespassing after warning and removed his handcuffs from his belt. At this point the Respondent became belligerent and hostile and told Officer Rogers, "You're not arresting me," and, "You'd better call for a lot of police, I'm not leaving." Officer Rogers requested backup units at this time. At about the same time, a man named Randall Rymes attempted to intervene between Officer Rogers and the Respondent. Officer Rogers told Mr. Rymes to leave and not interfere with the arrest. Mr. Rymes moved away and got into a two-door, black Isuzu automobile. As Officer Rogers attempted to place the handcuffs on the Respondent, she pulled her arm away and twisted her body. Officer Rogers continued with his efforts to arrest the Respondent and grabbed her left arm while asking her not to resist or struggle. The Respondent again pulled her left arm away and then struck Officer Rogers in the neck with her right fist. With Officer Rogers holding onto her arm, the Respondent pulled the officer towards the black Isuzu occupied by Mr. Rymes. Mr. Rymes drove the car beside the Respondent, opened the passenger door, and yelled to Respondent to get into the car. Mr. Rymes also grabbed the Respondent and attempted to help pull her into the car. At that point the Respondent kicked Officer Rogers in the left knee and as Officer Rogers continued to try to put the handcuffs on, the Respondent got partially into the car. Thereupon, Mr. Rymes started driving away with Officer Rogers running beside the automobile still holding onto the Respondent. Officer Rogers finally had to let go to avoid the risk of further injury. The vehicle driven by Mr. Rymes continued for several hundred feet until it was blocked by a vehicle driven by another law enforcement officer. Officer Rogers ran to the automobile driven by Mr. Rymes, removed the Respondent from the car, handcuffed her, and placed her in a police vehicle. Although Respondent had been drinking alcoholic beverages, she was not intoxicated at the time of the events described above. The Respondent has never been arrested or charged with a crime other than in the incident described above. /1
Recommendation Based on 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 Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, and imposing a penalty of probationary status for one year conditioned on the Respondent not engaging in any conduct during the probationary period which constitutes failure to maintain good moral character within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of May 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 1st of day of May 1990.
