Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers.2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Lydia Diaz (Diaz), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 26, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Diaz.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Diaz had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Diaz and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You unlawfully and knowingly obtained or used or endeavored to obtain or to use clothing, the property of Burdines with the intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of a right to the property or a benefit there from or to appropriate the property to your own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Diaz filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Diaz denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, Diaz filed an application with the County for employment as a correctional officer on October 8, 1987. Her application disclosed that she had used marijuana, the last time being in July 1987, and that she had been arrested for petit theft in 1979, but had not committed the offense. Regarding her use of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that Diaz did use marijuana on one occasion in July 1987. At the time, Diaz had been out to dinner with some girl friends, after which they stopped by an acquaintance's home to socialize. Upon arrival, someone was smoking marijuana and asked her to have some. Diaz initially refused, but upon the insistence of the group took a puff and passed it on to someone else. Other than this limited contact with marijuana, Diaz has only used the substance twice in her life, and that occurred at home, during the course of one evening, with her first husband in 1975. At that time, Diaz smoked marijuana, at her first husband's request, while they watched television that evening. But for this limited use, Diaz has not otherwise used marijuana or any other controlled substance. Regarding her arrest in March 1979 for petit theft, the proof demonstrates that such charges were dismissed and that Diaz did not commit the offense. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to her application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether she currently possesses the requisite moral character for employment. Here, Diaz, born November 2, 1955, used marijuana in July 1987, only 7 months before her employment by the County as a correctional officer. Such use was, by the County's own interpretation of the rules, proximate to her employment and should have resulted in the rejection of her application. Fred Crawford, then Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, made, however, an exception in Diaz' case, since her mother was an employee of long standing with his office, and employed her on the condition that she refrain from the use of any controlled substance and that she excel in her performance. Diaz has satisfied both conditions. Following her employment in February 1988, Diaz was graduated first in a class of 40 correctional officers from the academy. She was certified by the Commission on June 17, 1988, for completion of the 675-hour basic correctional officer course, and on October 13, 1988, for the 40-hour advanced report writing and review course. To date, Diaz has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. Her evaluations have been above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Apart from her exceptional performance as a correctional officer, Diaz has other traits that reflect well on her moral character. Currently she is remarried and the mother of three children. By those who know of her, she maintains a good home and is an excellent parent. In addition to her other responsibilities, she attends night school at Miami-Dade Community College, where she has made the Dean's list for having achieved all "A's" the last two terms. Diaz is also current on all her obligations, and enjoys a good credit reputation in the community. While Diaz' use of marijuana in July 1977 was proximate to her employment by the County, and should have resulted in the rejection of her application, this proceeding is a de novo hearing on her application for certification, and her qualifications are, therefore, evaluated as of the date of hearing. Here, her use of marijuana two times, the last time being almost 2 years ago, is not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ Rather, Diaz has demonstrated, on balance, that she possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Lydia Diaz, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed certified public accountant in the State of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The Respondent's license number is AC 20884 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The information filed by the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A, alleged that the Respondent unlawfully did solicit Detective Rick Shaw to commit the offense of murder in the first degree, an offense prohibited by Section 782.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and in the course of such solicitation, did command, urge, hire, or request the Mr. Shaw to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense, to wit: to unlawfully and from a premeditated design effect the death of Zena Leider, a human being, contrary to Section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was convicted in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A of one count of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was sentenced to be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 17 years. After serving a period 12 years, the balance of the sentence shall be suspended; and he will be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Daniel Hevia, CPA, was accepted as an expert in the profession of accountancy and testified concerning that profession (Transcript, pg. 24). Accountancy is based upon professional judgment, both technical and ethical. People practicing accountancy must have good ethics and a strong character because of the types of judgments which have to be made in the profession (Transcript, pg. 26). Accountants have to have mature judgment and maintain good mental stability because the public places a great deal of trust in CPA's (Transcript, pg. 27). Good moral character means a personal history of honest, fairness, respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the State of Florida and the nation (Transcript, pg. 25). The Respondent's conviction shows a lack of good judgment and an absence of ethics and good character which adversely effect the Respondent's ability to practice public accounting (Transcript, pg. 42). In the opinion of Mr. Hevia, the Respondent violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Transcript, pgs. 28 and 30).
Recommendation Having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain good moral character; and having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by being convicted of a crime relating to his ability to practice public accounting, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-6424 The Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons stated: 1-10. Adopted. 11-12. Rejected, as repetitive and cumulative. 13-14. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Martha Willis Executive Director Board of Accountancy Department of Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 16 Gainesville, FL 32606 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tobi C. Pam, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 David S. Leider D.C. #118606 Sumter Correctional Institution P.O. Box 667 Bushnell, FL 33513-0667
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Commission on January 21, 1975, and was issued certificate No. 02-13392. On November 29, 1987, the Respondent was arrested by Officer Carl Matrone of the Opa Locka Police Department. During the course of this arrest, Officer Matrone seized a plastic bag which contained in fact 1.0 grams of cannabis, as the term is defined and used in Sections 893.02(3) and 893.03(1)(c)4, Florida Statutes. This amount would yield approximately one marijuana cigarette in volume. As a result of this arrest, the Office of the State Attorney in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit charged the Respondent by affidavit with a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, by unlawful possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. The affidavit was filed in the County Court in and for Dade County. On February 26, 1988, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge as set forth in the charging document. The Court accepted the plea, withheld an adjudication of guilt, and placed the Respondent on a six month period of reporting probation. Furthermore, on October 3, 1988, the Court ordered that the records in this misdemeanor case be sealed. The underlying facts which gave rise to this criminal misdemeanor follow. On November 29, 1987, Officer Matrone observed a Dodge van which was being driven by Respondent at approximately 11:45 a.m. The van was traveling north toward 130th Street on N.W. 30th Avenue when it crossed the median strip and parked in front of an apartment building. This apartment building is known to the police as a narcotics location since numerous arrests have been conducted in the area. As soon as the van pulled over, Officer Matrone observed an unidentified black male approach the van and exchange a small package for an unknown amount of paper money. Respondent received the package and, as Officer Matrone approached, the black male fled on foot. Respondent pulled away from the stop and proceeded to the corner traffic light with Officer Matrone following. When Officer Matrone turned on his siren, the Respondent immediately made a left turn and pulled into the first available parking place. Officer Matrone then asked Respondent to exit his vehicle which he did. Officer Matrone observed Respondent throw a small plastic bag to the ground as he exited the van. The contents of this bag were later tested and were found to contain cannabis. Respondent was not on duty on November 29, 1987. He was, at that time, employed by the Miami Police Department. Lt. Blom, who supervised all of the street officers on the day shift for the Miami Police Department, was notified that Respondent was being held in connection with the incident described in paragraphs 5-9. Lt. Blom went to the Opa Locka Police station and relieved Respondent of duty. Respondent told Lt. Blom "I made a mistake." During the time Lt. Blom talked with Respondent, it did not appear to Blom that Respondent was under the influence of drugs nor did Respondent admit that he had used drugs. Arthur G. DeNunzio, Sr. has known Respondent for over fourteen years. According to Mr. DeNunzio, Respondent has a good reputation in his church and in the community for honesty and integrity. Respondent's moral character is known by Mr. DeNunzio to be good. James Robinson has known Respondent for approximately ten years. Respondent has been employed by Mr. Robinson for approximately five months. According to Mr. Robinson, Respondent has a reputation as a good worker, a man of his word, and a man who gets things done timely and properly. Respondent is thought to be honest, having integrity, and of good moral character. Mr. Robinson entrusts large amounts of money to Respondent's care and has no reservations regarding his judgment or moral character. Emerenciano Soles has known Respondent for approximately sixteen years. According to Mr. Soles, Respondent has a high reputation in his community for honesty and for good moral character. On November 30, 1987, Respondent resigned from the Miami Police Department. During his tenure with the department, Respondent had received good work evaluations and several commendations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2Oth day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard E. Lober, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33172-2108 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s application for a real estate associates’ license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2009). Petitioner is a retired individual from Exxon. He worked as a research technologist for Exxon for 34 years. As such, he traveled extensively both in-state and out-of-state for the company. He retired in late 2008 and moved to Florida, shortly thereafter. He lives in Florida with his wife and two step-sons and worked for a brief time in a real estate sales office. During that experience he became interested in obtaining a real estate sales associates’ license and applied for licensure around March 2009. In 1998 or 1999, Petitioner lived in Louisiana where he resided with his daughter. On three separate occasions he either inappropriately touched his daughter in a sexual manner or she inappropriately touched him in a sexual manner. His daughter was about nine years old at the time of the three incidents. However, Petitioner’s actions were not reported to law enforcement until sometime in 2002. In October, 2002, Petitioner was charged with three counts of molestation of a juvenile and aggravated incest in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisana. On September 10, 2003, Petitioner plead guilty to three counts of molestation of a juvenile and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation with a variety of conditions. The evidence showed that supervised probation in Lousiana is similar to house arrest in Florida. During his supervision, Petitioner participated in and completed therapy with his daughter and ex-wife. According to Petitioner, he made amends to both his daughter and other members of her extended family. His daughter, who is now in college, regularly calls him on the phone, visits him in Florida and stays at his house. He testified that they have a close relationship and she has forgiven him. However, Petitioner’s daughter did not testify at the hearing. Indeed, Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay corroboration of his good character or his rehabilitation. Given this lack of evidence, the record is insufficient to establish that Petitioner now has good moral character or rehabilitated himself. Petitioner also testified that after his convictions, he returned to work at Exxon and frequently traveled with special travel permits from the Court and GPS tracking, both in- state and out-of-state, for the company. However, without more details from a credible source, these facts do not establish good moral character or rehabilitation. Petitioner completed his sentence in September 2008, and moved to Florida. He has not had any further criminal involvement with the law. Unfortunately, because of his record, he has had great difficulty finding employment. Petitioner worked as an assistant in a real estate office for about three months; his contact with the public was limited. His work in the real estate office precipitated Petitioner’s interest in becoming licensed. Petitioner testified that the agent he worked for was willing to hire him at his office. This agent did not testify at the hearing. Again, Petitioner’s testimony, by itself, is insufficient to establish good moral character. Additionally, there has been insufficient time between his release from supervision and the date of the hearing (approximately two years). Given these facts, Petitioner’s application should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated sufficient to show good moral character and denying Petitioner’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvah T. Wickboldt 1150 Fort Pickens Road, Unit F-1 Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a case in which, by Administrative Complaint served on Respondent on September 24, 1985, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission seeks to revoke Certificate Number C-8690, which was issued to Respondent on April 10, 1981. As grounds for the proposed revocation it is asserted that Respondent lacks good moral character and is therefore in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 10, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number C-8690. Sometime on February 24 or 25, 1984, while the owners were away from home, the Respondent, Alton L. Moore, without the permission of the owners, broke into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Fred McElroy at the KOA Campground in Starke, Florida, and stole various items of personal property belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Fred McElroy, including cash in the amount of $600 or $700, a canvas bag, some checks and business records, and some jewelry. Alton L. Moore broke into the home for the purpose of stealing personal property and had no intention of returning the stolen property.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's Certificate Number C-8690. DONE AND ORDERED this 16 day of June 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June 1986. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted as background and introduction information. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraphs: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14: Rejected as constituting unnecessary subordinate details (even though supported by competent substantial evidence). Consistent with these proposed findings, I have made the essential finding that the Respondent committed the crimes described in these paragraphs. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (None were submitted.) COPIES FURNISHED: Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Alton L. Moore Route 7, Box 544 Lake City, Florida 32055
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lamary had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Lamary and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Respondent law enforcement certificate number 102033 on December 3, 1989. Respondent has remained certified continuously since that date. Respondent's law enforcement experience includes a related assignment while serving in the United State Marine Corps. He then worked as a deputy sheriff and police officer in Los Angeles, California. In 1989, Respondent was employed by the Tampa Police Department for three or four months, and, in 1990, he was employed by the Cocoa Police Department for two years. For the last seven years, Respondent has been employed outside of law enforcement; currently, he is a sales manager at a Chevrolet dealership in Cocoa. While working for the Cocoa Police Department, Respondent continued to reside in the Tampa area, where his wife and three children also resided. On November 20, 1991, pending the later entry of a final dissolution decree, a circuit judge in Tampa entered an Injunction for Protection from Domestic Violence. The injunction ordered Respondent and his then-wife "from entering the dwelling, or from entering upon the curtilage of the dwelling of the other . . .." The injunction warned that an "intentional violation" of its provisions "shall constitute contempt of court, punishable by incarceration and/or fine." Respondent was six feet tall and 220 pounds, and his then-wife was five feet, three inches tall and 115 pounds. On December 11, 1991, Respondent intentionally entered the driveway of the townhouse at which his then-wife was residing. A sheriff's deputy responding to a telephone call from Respondent's then-wife saw her in the driver's seat of her vehicle, parked in the driveway, and Respondent standing next to her holding the top of the door, so as to prevent her from closing the door. Respondent and his then-wife were arguing. The deputy arrested Respondent. A judge revoked bail on various criminal charges arising out of an earlier altercation between Respondent and his then-wife. Respondent remained in jail for 18 months awaiting trial on these charges. At trial, he was acquitted of all but two charges--trespassing and battery for grabbing the hands of his then-wife--but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on these charges.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and reprimanding his certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 David Barnard Post Office Box 360971 Melbourne, Florida 32936-0971
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate should be granted or should be denied on the grounds itemized in the Notice of Reasons dated February 25, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Scott William Katz, has applied for a Florida educator's certificate. His application is dated December 14, 1989, but it was not filed until July 25, 1990. The Petitioner filed an earlier application for a Florida educator's certificate during 1986. The Petitioner's 1986 application was denied by Final Order issued on September 3, 1987. That Final Order also provided: dditionally, the panel ORDERS that Petitioner may not apply for a teaching certificate for a period of three (3) years from entry of this order. As basis for the enhancement, the panel cites the conduct described in paragraphs three through twenty- one of the Notice of Reasons. The factual basis for the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application is set forth in a Notice of Reasons document, which was served on the Petitioner on January 27, 1987. The relevant paragraphs of the January 27, 1987, Notice of Reasons read as follows: 1/ In 1980 the applicant was admitted to the Florida Bar as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. On or before September 1984, the applicant threatened an opposing party in a civil law suit with criminal prosecution in order to gain an advantage in the civil matter. In September 1984, the Florida Supreme Court issued a private reprimand to the applicant for threatening criminal prosecution in order to gain an advantage in a civil matter. On or about February 1981, the applicant was retained to represent a wife in a dissolution of marriage action. He obtained a Final Judgment on her behalf which required the husband to pay child support and provided other relief. After obtaining the Final Judgment, the applicant continued to represent the wife, filing a motion to modify the Final Judgment and a Motion for Contempt against her ex-husband to obtain payment of past due child support on her behalf. Approximately two years later, however, applicant commenced proceedings against his former client on behalf of her ex-husband, seeking a reduction in child support payments. On or about October 1983, the applicant misrepresented material facts in a sworn pleading which the applicant filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On or about December 1983, the applicant coerced an agreement from a former client to pay him money for a claim which had no legal basis. Based upon the misconduct set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, the Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. On June 26, 1986, the Florida Supreme Court found the applicant committed the misconduct alleged and found the applicant guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Integration Rule and Disciplinary Rules. The Supreme Court issued an order on said date in which it disbarred the applicant and assessed costs against him in the amount of $4,086.45. On or about May 20, 1986, the applicant submitted a false and fraudulent affidavit in support of his request to the Palm Beach County Court for an award of attorney's fees. On or about May 27, 1986, the Palm Beach County Court held the applicant in direct criminal contempt of court for filing said false and fraudulent affidavit. The Court sentenced the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00 On or about July 22, 1986, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entered an order disbarring the applicant based upon his submission of the false and fraudulent affidavit to the Palm Beach County Court on May 20, 1986. Said disbarment was ordered to run consecutive to the Supreme Court's disbarment order entered on June 26, 1986. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to John Robert Harr. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did knowingly obtain or endeavor to obtain a sum of money in the amount of $300.00 or more from John Robert Harr with the intent to deprive John Robert Harr of said funds. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offenses of practice of law while disbarred or suspended and grand theft, based upon the conduct described in paragraph 12. Between July 26, 1986, and August 26, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Michael D. Jones and/or Judith Jones and/or Tanya Jones. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 14. On or about August 25, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Zell Altman and the Clerk of the Palm Beach County Court. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 16. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Barbara Curtis. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 18. Between July 16, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Olive Labbadia. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 20. In addition to the conduct described above in the January 27, 1987, Notice of Reasons, on May 12, 1987, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of practice of law while disbarred and the court withheld adjudication of the charge. The Petitioner was placed on probation for twelve months and ordered to pay $25.00 each month toward the cost of supervision. On March 15, 1988, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of resisting arrest without violence and the court withheld adjudication of the charge. The Petitioner was placed on one year probation and ordered to pay $25.00 each month for the cost of supervision. The Petitioner remains disbarred from the state bar in the State of Florida. He has also been disbarred in the State of Oklahoma and in several federal courts as a result of his Florida disbarment. Since the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application for a Florida teaching certificate, the Petitioner has invested a great deal of time and effort in the pursuit of higher education. His studies have been in the fields of Law and Education. By pursuing further studies in the field of Education, the Petitioner hopes to be better prepared to be a teacher. The Petitioner has done well in his studies since 1987. The facts which form the basis for the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application demonstrate that at that time the Petitioner lacked good moral character. The additional facts set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5, above, demonstrate that as of the early part of 1988, the Petitioner lacked good moral character. The record in this case does not reveal any specific examples of conduct by the Petitioner since March of 1988 that are indicative of a lack of good moral character, but neither is there any persuasive evidence of the Petitioner's rehabilitation since March of 1988. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner is presently of good moral character.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate because of the failure of the Petitioner to establish his rehabilitation and present good moral character, such denial to be without prejudice to the refiling of a future application at such time as the Petitioner believes he can prove his rehabilitation and good moral character. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July 1991. 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 July 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact By application dated January 3, 1998, Jerry George Sardone, Jr. (Petitioner), made application for licensure as a community association manager by examination. Petitioner's application was received by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers (Respondent), on or about January 15, 1998. A section entitled "ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS" was located on the first page of the application. The section provided, among other things, the following: Pursuant to Rule 61B-55.004(5)(a)5.[sic], Florida Administrative Code, failing to provide full and complete disclosure or failing to provide accurate information on this application for licensure or in materials subsequently provided to the Division [Division of Professions] will result in the denial of this application. Question numbered 17 of the application inquired, among other things, about Petitioner's criminal background. Question numbered 17 stated in pertinent part: C) Criminal * * * 2. Have you ever been convicted or been found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or misdemeanor? Yes ( ) No ( ) This question applies to any violation of the laws of any state, territory or country without regard to whether the matter is under appeal or you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled or pardoned. Petitioner checked "no" to the above inquiry. If an applicant checked "yes" to the above inquiry, the applicant was required to respond to additional inquiries regarding the applicant's criminal background. One of the additional inquiries involved the outcome of the criminal situation, and one of the possible outcomes listed was "Charges Dismissed (Nol Pros entered)." By letter dated March 5, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner that, among other things, his application was deficient. The deficiency indicated was that the criminal history received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that Petitioner had a criminal history that he had not revealed on his application. The letter indicated the specific criminal history as follows: Specifically, you [Petitioner] were arrested on April 21, 1980 by the Sheriff's Office, West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with Failure to Appear for Arraignment/Resisting Arrest with Violence. You were arrested on November 15, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. You were arrested on December 30, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Burglary Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon. The disposition of these incidents are either unclear or not known. The letter requested, among other things, certain information regarding the arrests, including disposition, within 60 days. By letter dated April 7, 1998, Petitioner responded to Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner provided certified copies of the courts' disposition records regarding the arrests in Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner also indicated in his letter that he had mistakenly recalled that the charges were dismissed and, therefore, had not included them on his application. By letter dated May 6, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for licensure based upon Petitioner's failure to establish that he possessed good moral character. Respondent indicated, among other things, the basis for its determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character, namely, Petitioner's failure to include any arrests on his application, his arrest record, and his response that he submitted to the arrest record. As to the arrest and charge on April 21, 1980, Petitioner pled guilty on June 23, 1980, to and was convicted of failure to appear for arraignment and a lesser charge of resisting arrest without violence. Adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was sentenced to six months probation. As to the arrest and charge on November 15, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on January 5, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Petitioner was ordered to pay $250 or spend five days in jail, and his license was ordered revoked. As to the arrest and charge on December 30, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on July 21, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of attempted petit larceny. The disposition was a conditional discharge.2 Respondent included another arrest in its letter dated May 6, 1998, which was not indicated in its letter dated March 5, 1998. The arrest occurred on December 9, 1984, when Petitioner was arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department in Florida and charged with willful and wanton reckless driving. The disposition of that arrest was not established at hearing. It is undisputed that Petitioner failed to include any of the criminal history on his application for licensure. Even if Petitioner thought that the charges were dismissed, as he indicated in his response letter, the application provided Petitioner an opportunity to list the charges and to indicate that they were dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers, enter a final order denying the application of Jerry George Sardone, Jr., for licensure as a community association manager by examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a building inspector on August 6, 2003. The application was reviewed by Respondent and subsequently denied on the basis that it contained “materials which questions [sic] the good moral character of Petitioner,” and that Petitioner’s application "failed to provide complete supporting documentation relating to all previous disciplinary actions which could also impact a determination concerning [Petitioner's] moral character." No notification that Petitioner’s application lacked supporting documentation was sent by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner’s application lists prior convictions for traffic-related offenses, such as careless driving, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. Petitioner has never been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, false statement, fraud, or theft. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony. Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time that all of the traffic-related offenses were committed. Petitioner is now a recovering alcoholic who has been actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) for over three years on a voluntary basis. His sobriety date is May 25, 2001. The sobriety date is important because it marks the date when an alcoholic makes and implements a commitment to a new way of life. AA operates on the principle generally accepted by the medical community that alcoholism is a disease, and not a moral issue. AA operates on the principle that although there is no cure for alcoholism, there is a daily reprieve. AA is a 12-step program providing guidelines to living. AA works only if the alcoholic follows the twelve steps to the best of his or her ability. A person who is not willing to change his or her life cannot be helped by AA. AA is an ongoing lifetime process of personal improvement, the pinnacle of which is service to others. Petitioner is a totally different person now as compared to the way he used to be. Petitioner admits that his alcohol-related impairment was the primary cause of the episodes of misconduct prior to his commitments to a life of sobriety and to the principles of the AA program. Petitioner’s last criminal conviction was in 1998. Since becoming sober, Petitioner purchased his own home and recently married. Petitioner is an officer in his AA home group, with responsibilities that include overseeing the group’s activities, setting up meetings, chairing meetings, providing coffee, and paying rent for the meeting site with monies that the group has entrusted to him. Petitioner regularly chairs his home group meetings, and has spoken on alcohol-related issues to several other community groups, including the Salvation Army and the Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner has become a person of integrity who cares about others, reaching out to new AA attendees as a mentor. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped drinking. Joe Iagrossi has known Petitioner for a little more than two years. Petitioner is employed by Iagrossi’s company, Construction Inspections of the Palm Beaches. Iagrossi considers Petitioner to be a reliable, honest, and truthful employee, trusts Petitioner’s judgment, and has confidence in his work. Iagrossi believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, as well as the character to observe the difference. There have never been any conduct issues with Petitioner, and he possesses a good reputation within the company. Iagrossi is of the opinion that Petitioner can practice building inspection with reasonable skill and safety to the general public. Richard Sussan is Petitioner’s AA sponsor and has known Petitioner for two years. Sussan considers Petitioner a person of integrity, who cares about others, is reliable and honest, and is very committed to AA. Petitioner is a member of, and is actively involved with the activities of, Christ Fellowship Church. Petitioner is a regular volunteer in the church’s Special Needs Ministry. The Special Needs Ministry is a program which allows families of children with special needs to attend regular church services by providing volunteers to watch the special needs children during that time. For the past two years Petitioner has volunteered every other Sunday to watch a special needs child so that the child's parents can attend church services. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and church members who know him, and in that group he enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. Petitioner worked for the architectural firm of Ames Bennett & Associates, P.A. for fifteen years. Petitioner’s duties included field inspections for residential and commercial projects, for code and contract compliance, from geotechnical and foundation through trim work, ADA, and fire safety oversight. Petitioner also managed the office, paid bills, interviewed job applicants, and showed new employees inspection techniques. Petitioner passed the Southern Building Code Congress International certification examination for Building Inspector on November 20, 2001. Petitioner passed the International Code Council certification examination for Building Inspector on September 18, 2003. Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code governs enforcement of the Florida Americans with Disabilities and Accessibility Implementation Act. The Act defines “disability” as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and includes alcoholism."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of August, 2004.
