The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all material times, respondent has held a registered Class "B" Security Agency License, No. B86-00092, a Class "DS" Security Officer School/or Training Facility License, No. DS90-00069, a Class "D" Security Officer License, No. D85-2333, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI88-00012, and a Class "MB" Manager Security Agency License, No. MB86-00105. At all pertinent times, respondent provided security services to various non-governmental clients in Bay County, Florida, and also furnished security services to its only governmental client, the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, more than 100 miles from respondent's offices. From January 21, 1991, to June 30, 1991, respondent employed J. C. Barnwell, Terrell Barnwell, Larry Burks, Michael Dicks, Robert Pompey and Darrell L. Smith, none of whom held security officer licenses. They all worked as security officers at the Federal Correctional Institution in Leon County, and did no other work for respondent.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Isler & Banks, P.A. P.O. Drawer 430 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Jim Smith, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-2 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald C. Whalen, is president of Somerset Security & Investigation, Inc. of Manatee County, Florida. Respondent holds several licenses issued by Petitioner, including a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license number 86-00242, effective October 24, 1988; a Class "B" Watchman, Guard or Patrol Agency license number B86-00153, effective October 24, 1988; a Class "C" Private Investigator license number 86-00233, effective August 4, 1988; a Class "E" Repossesser license number E87-00027, effective March 20, 1989; and a Class "M" Manager license number M86-00046, effective August 4, 1988. Vaughn Yeager was employed by Respondent as a security guard for three months in 1988 without first obtaining licensure. Tom French was employed by Respondent as a security guard for three months in 1988 without first obtaining licensure. Ralph Chaffin was employed by Respondent as a security guard in May 1988, and worked for 27 hours without being licensed. Mr. Chaffin's application for licensure was not submitted because he quit within a few days of being hired. Judith L. Chester was employed by Respondent as a security guard between May 5, 1988 and September 24, 1988, before becoming licensed by the Division. George Clifton was employed as a security guard by Respondent between August 31 and September 5, 1988. An application for licensure was never submitted because of Mr. Clifton's termination. Roger Lee Curtis was employed by Respondent as a security guard from March 4 through August 1, 1988, before his application for 1icensure was received by the Division. James DeCoff was employed as a security guard by Respondent between June 17, 1988 and June 21, 1988, when he was terminated for improperly using a client's phone. His application for licensure was never submitted. Michael Durbin was employed as a security guard by Respondent in May 1988. He quit after working one day and an application was not submitted. Anthony R. Edwards was employed as a security guard by Respondent in May 1988. He quit after working one day and his application was not submitted. Albert F. Ferrell was employed as a security guard by Respondent between May 6, 1988 and November 20, 1988, before his application was submitted. Drenda Giambra was employed as a security guard for Respondent from September 16, 1988 to September 26, 1988, before becoming licensed by the Division. Dean Harris was employed as a security guard by Respondent from July 19, 1988 to November 20, 1988, before he was licensed by the Division. Dietrich Hogrefe was employed as a security guard by Respondent between November 30, 1988 and January 28, 1989, before becoming licensed by the Division. Daniel Hunt, Jr., was employed as a security guard by Respondent on April 10, 1989, before he was licensed on April 18, 1989. David Laplante was employed as a security guard by Respondent on January 15, 1989. He worked six hours and quit. An application was not submitted. Victor Lesso was employed as a security guard by Respondent from June 16 through July 7, 1988, without submitting an application for licensure. He was terminated after being arrested for arson. Ray Linderman was employed as a security guard by Respondent between April 8 and April 30, 1988, without being licensed. His application was submitted late. Todd Persinger was employed as a security guard by Respondent in January 1989, and worked one weekend before quitting. An application for licensure was never submitted. Arthur Samson was employed as a security guard by Respondent on September 30, 1988. His application was submitted by Respondent on October 2, 1988. He was terminated when the application was denied. Russell W. Schmidt was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 4, 1988 thru April 1, 1988. He quit before his application for licensure was submitted. Jennifer Slaton was employed as a security guard by Respondent in November 1988. She worked part-time for three days and quit before her application was submitted. Randall Springer was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in September 1988. His application was never submitted because he quit. Tracy Tamburin worked as a security guard for Respondent for one weekend in December 1988. Her application was never submitted because she quit. James Wooten was employed as a security guard by Respondent from October 2, 1988 through March 25, 1989, before becoming licensed. Brian Frenn was employed as a security guard by Respondent for three shifts in January 1989. An application for licensure was not submitted. Gina Spaniak was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in March 1988. An application for licensure was never submitted. Tom Hunt was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in May 1989. An application was not submitted. Earl Watson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in April 1989. An application was not submitted. Todd Moudy was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in April 1989. An application was not submitted. John Mullins was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in May 1989. An application was not submitted. Walker Mobley was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in May 1989. An application for 1icensure was not submitted. Richard Yelvington was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 17, 1989, to February 28, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. Terry Harrison was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 10, 1989 to February 10, 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. Cynthia K. Burdell was employed as a security guard by Respondent from July 18, 1988 through November 20, 1988, before being licensed by the Division. Flynn C. Gregory was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 30, 1989 through April 4, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. David Morico was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 30, 1989 to May 15, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. Daniel F. Hunt, Sr., was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 18, 1989 to May 15, 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. Robert F. Hunt was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in March 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. John Moffat was employed as a security guard by Respondent from May 18, 1989 to June 1, 1989, with an expired Class "D" license. Jeff Clarkson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Jay Abram was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Shedrick Bates was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Joseph Likes was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Dawn Dodson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Woodrow Roberts was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Robert Anderson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. In July 1989, twenty of Respondent's employees performed security guard services without identification cards. In July 1989, Respondent issued to six employees security guard badges which depicted a facsimile reproduction or pictorial portion of the Great Seal of the State of Florida without authorization. On or about June 30, 1988, Respondent repossessed a 38 ft. Wellcraft St. Tropez boat for Barnett Bank of Manatee County, Florida. The bank authorized Respondent to store the boat near Joe Ungarelli's house at 2409 69th Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Mr. Ungarelli expressed an interest in purchasing the boat from the Bank, and on July 2 or 3, 1988, Respondent, Ungarelli and two Barnett Bank employees, Doug Kramer and Tom French took the boat on a five to six hour trip so that Ungarelli could inspect the boat. The next day Respondent attended a Fourth of July party at Ungarelli's house. The boat was moved from Trailer Estates Marina to Ungarelli's dock and parked there. Respondent was also aboard for the second moving. Respondent solicited his friend Ungarelli to accompany him on the trip to repossess the St. Tropez boat from Englewood, Florida, a distance of over 40 miles south of Bradenton. Lee Bissette drove Respondent, Ungarelli and French to Englewood. Additionally, French worked part-time for Respondent as a security guard. After the boat was repossessed and brought from Englewood to Bradenton, Ungarelli again indicated to Respondent and Tom French that he was interested in purchasing the boat. Ungarelli requested that Barnett Bank allow him to take the boat out so that he could show his wife the boat and hopefully get her approval to purchase it. Barnett Bank thereafter contacted Respondent and authorized him to show the boat to Ungarelli and his wife. For doing so, Respondent was paid for his services. On Sunday, July 3, 1989, Respondent, acting on behalf of Barnett Bank, took the Ungarellis, Tom French and Doug Kramer out on the boat for approximately five hours. Karen Erikson, a friend and former employee of Respondent was picked up at a local seafood establishment earlier in the day. Immediately upon boarding the boat, Karen Erikson retired to the berth for at least three hours during the boat trip as she had consumed approximately ten beers and was somewhat intoxicated. On July 4, Joe Ungarelli had a Fourth of July party at his house. Respondent and other employees of Somerset Security were invited to Ungarelli's party. Ungarelli's house is located on a canal where the 38 ft. St. Tropez was docked along with four other boats, including a 40 ft. Scarub and a 32 ft. Sports Fisherman. Ungarelli dug the 25 ft. canal behind his home and it is, on the most favorable day, at best "tricky" to maneuver a large boat such as the repossessed 38 ft. St. Tropez into the canal. Respondent did not move the repossessed boat from Ungarelli's home on July 4th, nor did any other party, as Respondent, Ungarelli and several of his employees were busy barbecuing a pig for the party which was held that day. On each occasion that Respondent moved the repossessed boat, it was with the owner's (Barnett Bank of Bradenton) permission and was not used for any personal benefit of Respondent. Ungarelli submitted a bid to purchase the repossessed St. Tropez, however, he was out-bid by another party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Stipulation of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $4,000.00 and place his Class "A", "B", "C" and "M" licenses on probation for a term of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of July, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Christopher Hargraves, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "B" Security Agency License, Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit, and Class "MB" Manager of Security Agency License.
Findings Of Fact At all timed pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher W. Hargraves (Respondent/Mr.Hargraves), was the holder of Class "B" Security Agency License No. B87-00007, Class "MB" Security Agency Manager License No. MB 90-000019, and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License No. G91-00245. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hargraves was president of Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention Associated, Inc. (Protection Unlimited), a company which provided security services in the Tampa Bay area. The address of record for Protection Unlimited is 1511 Clement Road, Lutz, Florida 33549. Mack Cummings began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in early 1996 and worked there until late 1996. At the time Mr. Cummings was employed to work as a security guard for Protection Unlimited, he was also employed by Providence Security. As a security officer for Providence Security, Mr. Cummings' assigned posts were three Checkers Restaurants located in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Cummings' shift at Checkers began at 8:00 p.m. and ended between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. The variation in the time Mr. Cummings' shift ended was due to and coincided with the time the particular Checkers' manager completed the restaurant's closing. When Mr. Cummings was employed by Protection Unlimited, he was assigned to work at Channel 13, a television facility located in Tampa, Florida. When he was being considered for the position of security officer, Mr. Cummings told Respondent about his assignment with Providence Security and advised Respondent that he would be unable to report to Channel 13 until after midnight. Nonetheless, Mr. Cummings was scheduled to begin his shift at Channel 13 at midnight. As a result of his employment at Providence Security, Mr. Cummings usually did not report for duty at Channel 13 until after midnight. Respondent was aware that on many nights Mr. Cummings was not reporting to Channel 13 until much later than midnight. Steven Cox worked for Protection Unlimited as a security officer during most of 1995. As a security guard for Protection Unlimited, Mr. Cox' assigned posts were Channel 13 and a yacht, the Claire T. While working at Channel 13, Mr. Cox performed security duties in plain clothes. At the time Mr. Cox was employed by Protection Unlimited, no uniforms were issued to him. Mr. Hargraves issued uniforms to Mr. Cox approximately two months after Mr. Cox began working for Protection Unlimited. David Gilbert was hired as a security officer with Protection Unlimited on or about July 10, 1995. Mr. Gilbert often worked with Steven Cox while both were employed with Protection Unlimited. During this time, Mr. Cox often observed Gilbert performing security duties in civilian clothes, rather than in a uniform. Michael Munger began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in late 1994 and worked for that agency for approximately nine months. As an employee of Protection Unlimited, Mr. Munger was assigned to Channel 13. Although Mr. Munger performed security duties at Channel 13, he was never provided with a uniform and thus, performed these duties in plain clothes. Willie Lee began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in June 1995 and worked for the agency until January 1996. Mr. Lee's assigned post was Channel 13. When Mr. Lee was initially employed by Protection Unlimited, he was not issued an agency identification card. A month or two after Mr. Lee was employed by Protection Unlimited, Respondent gave him a card which Respondent referred to as an agency identification card. The only information contained on the card was "Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc.," the typewritten name "Willie Lee," and Mr. Lee's signature. Also, the "agency card" had spaces designated "photo" and "agency representative," although the card contained neither a photo of Mr. Lee nor the signature or name of the agency representative. Barbara Norman was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited for several weeks in 1995. Respondent never provided Ms. Norman with uniforms to wear while she was performing security duties. Moreover, Ms. Norman had only a Class "D" license and therefore was not authorized to work as an "armed guard." Consistent with this Class "D" license, Protection Unlimited did not provide Ms. Norman with a firearm while she worked at Channel 13. However, she was told to wear an empty holster. Glen Davis was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in 1996. Mr. Davis was assigned to the Claire T yacht. Mr. Davis was not issued uniforms to wear while conducting security duties for Protection Unlimited. On April 8, 1996, Gary Floyd and Gene Blicth, investigator for the Department, performed a proactive inspection of the Claire T while Mr. Davis was on duty and observed that Mr. Davis was not wearing a uniform. William Scott was employed with Protection Unlimited in February 1996 and continued working for the agency until July 1996. While employed with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott worked as a both a security guard and as acting supervisor for the agency. During the time that Mr. Scott worked for Protection Unlimited, he usually relieved by Mack Cummings or Steve Pritchard, also employees of Protection Unlimited. One night Mr. Pritchard did not report to work and no guard was or came on duty when Mr. Scott's assigned shift ended. Several times during his employment with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott needed to leave Channel 13 before the end of his shift. In these instances, and before leaving his post early, Mr. Scott gave prior notice to Respondent. Upon being so informed, Respondent told Mr. Scott that he should not indicate on the log that he had left his post early. As acting supervisor with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott was aware that Respondent routinely generated scheduling documents, time sheets, and payment schedules related to the operations of Protection Unlimited. Mr. Scott observed Respondent throw away many of these documents. The documents that Respondent discarded were less than two years old. On or about March 8, 1996, Investigator Floyd performed a proactive inspection of the yacht, the Claire T. At the site, he spoke with a man who identified himself as Rocky Cocozza. Mr. Cocozza was working as a security guard on the vessel and produced an agency identification card from Protection Unlimited. During this inspection, Mr. Cocozza was wearing black trousers and a black jacket. Under the jacket, Mr. Cocozza was wearing a blue short-sleeve shirt which contained an emblem identifying the employing agency; the emblem was on the left side of the shirt, just above the pocket. However, the emblem on the shirt could not necessarily be seen when Mr. Cocozza was wearing the black jacket. On March 18, 1996, Investigator Floyd was on the premises of Channel 13. As he was leaving that facility, Investigator Floyd observed Respondent performing security duties in the reception area. Investigator Floyd then approached Respondent and asked to see his agency identification card. Respondent did not produce a current agency identification card. On or about May 3, 1996, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's address of record to inquire about matters related to Protection Unlimited. After determining that no one was on the premises, Investigator Floyd left one of his business cards on the door of Respondent's address of record. On the card, Investigator Floyd wrote, "Chris, please call." The note on the card was directed to Respondent, whose first name is Christopher. Later that same day, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's residence. After Respondent's wife told Investigator Floyd that Respondent was not at home, Investigator Floyd gave one of his business cards to Respondent's wife and requested that she give it to Respondent. On the card given to Respondent's wife, Investigator Floyd also wrote a note requesting that Respondent call him. After waiting two months and receiving no response from Respondent, Investigator Floyd left several telephone messages for Respondent between July 10 and July 29, 1996. The telephone messages were left with Respondent's answering service and requested that Respondent return Investigator Floyd's calls. Although Respondent's answering service confirmed to Investigator Floyd that all of his messages had been conveyed to Respondent, Respondent never returned Investigator Floyd's telephone calls. On August 20, 1996, Investigator Floyd reached Respondent by telephone and scheduled a meeting with Respondent for August 22, 1996. On the day of the scheduled meeting, Respondent called Investigator Floyd and canceled the meeting. The following day, August 23, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent at the Channel 13 security desk and, again, attempted to schedule a meeting with Respondent. Respondent indicated that he would call Investigator Floyd the following Monday, August 26, 1996, to schedule a meeting. After he had not heard from Respondent by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent to schedule a meeting. During the August 26, 1996 telephone conversation, Respondent refused to set a date to meet with Investigator Floyd, indicating that he was too busy. However, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he would call him the next week to schedule a meeting. Because he previously had been unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting with Respondent, after speaking with Respondent by telephone on August 26, 1998, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 and served Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena required Respondent to produce and provide the Department with various records maintained and related to the business operations of Protection Unlimited. The documents requested by the subpoena included the following: weekly assignment schedules; daily guard logs; time sheets; payroll records; personnel records of specified employees; and Employee Action Reports from January 1995 through March 1995, December 1995 through February 1996, and January 1996 through August 1996. Respondent failed to provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Respondent provided several of the requested documents but many of them appeared to have some of the information on them obliterated with "white out." With regard to several of the requested documents, Mr. Hargraves noted on the subpoena that the records could not be located. On or about September 3, 1996, after receiving some of the documents Respondent had provided pursuant to the subpoena, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 to speak with Respondent about the documents that had been requested. Upon arrival at Channel 13, Investigator Floyd told Respondent that he had a tape recorder and was recording the conversation. Respondent then refused to speak with Investigator Floyd and ejected him from the Channel 13 premises. Once Respondent ejected Investigator Floyd, Respondent went inside the Channel 13 building and locked the door. Investigator Floyd met with Respondent and his attorney on September 6, 1996, at the address of record for Protection Unlimited. During the meeting, Investigator Floyd discussed several areas of concern with Protection Unlimited, including the following: (1) general record keeping and record retention procedures; (2) filing of hiring and termination notices with Petitioner; (3) occupational license; (4) branch offices; and (5) general liability insurance. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, with regard to record keeping, Respondent acknowledged that he was a poor record keeper and that he routinely threw away records that he believed were no longer of use to him. Moreover, during this meeting, Respondent stated that he did not always file hiring and termination notices with Petitioner. During the course of his investigation, Investigator Floyd determined that Channel 13 permitted Respondent to bill for security guard services two weeks in advance. Based on a review of invoices from mid-December 1995 to August 1996, to Channel 13 from Respondent, Investigator Floyd found that Respondent had billed Channel 13 for his agency's services two weeks in advance. However, Respondent failed to make adjustments on subsequent invoices, to reflect a reduction in the actual number of hours worked by some security officers. For example, in July 1996, Respondent's invoices do not reflect the approximately nineteen hours that Mark Cummings was not actually at Channel 13. An investigation by Petitioner substantiated Respondent's admission that he did not always file hiring and termination notices. Among employees hired by Protection Unlimited, but for whom notices of hiring were not filed, were Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, William Scott, and Willie Lee. Furthermore, the Department's investigation found that Respondent failed to file termination notices for several of his employees, including William Scott, Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, and Willie Lee. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Respondent showed Investigator Floyd a Hillsborough County occupational license for Protection Unlimited. The license was dated September 5, 1996, and indicated that it was an initial issue, although Protection Unlimited had been in business since at least 1994. During the course of that meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his agency did not have an occupational license prior to the one dated September 5, 1996. Investigator Floyd discussed the issue of branch offices with Respondent during the September 6, 1996 meeting. At that time, Respondent acknowledged that he had no branch office license. This admission by Respondent is confirmed by Petitioner's records which revealed that Respondent had no branch office license for any location, including 3213 West Kennedy, Tampa, Florida, the location of Channel 13. Despite not having a branch office license which authorized him to carry on business activities such as interviewing potential employees at a location other than his address of record, Respondent routinely conducted such activities at Channel 13, located 3213 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Newspaper advertisements by Protection Unlimited, included a Channel 13 telephone number. When individuals called that number to inquire about available security officer positions, prospective job applicants were directed to come to Channel 13 for their job interview. During the time relevant to this proceeding, numerous job interviews to fill security officer positions for Protection Unlimited were routinely conducted at Channel 13. During the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees when they were hired. Respondent answered affirmatively and indicated that he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees before "they ever set foot" on their assigned post. The statement by Respondent that he always provided agency identification cards to employees upon hiring them is false in light of the credible testimony of Willie Lee that he performed his security duties for Protection Unlimited for at least a month before receiving his agency identification card. During the September 6, 1996, meeting between Investigator Floyd and Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he either permitted or had knowledge of his employees working in plain clothes while performing security duties. In response to this inquiry, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he neither permitted nor had knowledge that employees wore plain clothes while performing security duties for his company. The statement made by Respondent to Investigator Floyd was a false statement. The credible testimony of Barbara Norman and Glenn Davis, both employees of Protection Unlimited, was that Respondent never issued them uniforms in which to perform their security duties and, as a result thereof, they performed their duties in plain clothes. Furthermore, the credible testimony of Michael Munger and Steve Cox was that as employees of Protection Unlimited, they performed security duties in plain clothes. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Respondent was at the Channel 13 and observed that many times these employees were performing security duties while not in uniforms. Another issue addressed by Investigator Floyd during the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent concerned the required reporting of individuals who had been employed by Protection Unlimited. When asked by Investigator Floyd whether he had ever employed Barbara Norman and Michael Munger as security guards for Protection Unlimited, Respondent answered in the negative. This statement by Respondent is false in light of the credible testimony of Barabara Norman and Michael Munger. Ms. Norman and Mr. Munger were employed by and worked for Protection Unlimited in 1995. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent to provide proof of the required general liability insurance for Respondent's agency. Respondent implied that he had the required insurance coverage, but at that time had no proof of such coverage. However, Mr. Hargraves told Investigator Floyd that he would have his insurance company fax documentary evidence that Protection Unlimited had the required insurance. Although Mr. Hargraves indicated that he would request that the insurance company fax the information to Investigator Floyd that same day, no such proof of insurance was ever provided to Investigator Floyd. Respondent routinely performed duties as a security officer at Channel 13 during the period between March 1996 and August 1996, inclusive, although he did not have a Class "D" Security Officer License. Respondent routinely carried a concealed firearm while on duty as a security officer during the time period April 1995 to July 1996. Respondent told Glenn Davis that if investigators from the Department came to the Claire T, Mr. Davis was not to allow them on the post. Respondent indicated to Mr. Davis that he would be fired if he cooperated with the Department. Respondent also told Mr. Scott that he was not to speak with Department investigators and that if the investigators came to his assigned post, Mr. Scott was to have the police remove the investigators from the premises. Respondent told Mr. Pritchard not to speak with any investigators from the Department and to call the police if they came to Channel 13. Mr. Pritchard was told that he would be terminated if he spoke to any Department investigators. On July 13, 1996, at about 8:30 p.m. and while on duty at Channel 13, Mr. Scott locked his master key to the facility in an office he had just checked. Immediately thereafter Mr. Scott attempted to call Respondent. When Mr. Scott could not reach Respondent directly, he left several messages with Respondent's answering service. Respondent never turned the calls. When Mr. Scott left at midnight, he still had not heard from Respondent. The next day when Mr. Scott spoke with Respondent, about the "key" incident that has occurred on July 13, 1996. Respondent then directed Mr. Scott to indicate on the log that Respondent had returned Mr. Scott's call on July 13, 1998, shortly after 8:30 p.m., the time Mr. Scott had initially placed the call to Respondent. Mr. Scott told Respondent that he would not falsify the log. Later Mr. Scott observed that Mr. Hargraves had added an addendum to the daily log that falsely indicated that Respondent had responded to Mr. Scott's call the previous night.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts IV through XXIV and Counts XXVI through XXVIII; (2) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XXV; and (3) revoking Respondent's Class "B" license, Class "G" license, and Class "MB" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele L. Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher Hargraves 12515 Mondragon Tampa, Florida 33625 Laura Vaughn, Esquire 401 East Jackson Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues are whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a felony, whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether Tunstall falsified his application.
Findings Of Fact Leonard P. Tunstall made application for licensure as an unarmed and armed security guard to the Department of State. His application was received by the Department in February of 1981. The application indicates it was signed by Tunstall on October 29, 1980. Question #13 on the application was answered "no," as indicated by a check mark. When he originally received the application, Tunstall filled it out up to Question #13. He had not completed that question because he lacked all the data. Subsequently, Albert Simmons, his supervisor, stopped by Tunstall's residence and picked up the application, which Simmons completed with assistance from Tunstall's girlfriend. Neither Simmons nor Tunstall's girl friend had knowledge of Tunstall's record. Subsequently, Tunstall advised Simmons about his arrests, and Simmons told him that his arrests would not disqualify him. Tunstall signed the application with the understanding that his arrests would be disclosed. However, Simmons was subsequently fired, and Tunstall's application was found by Simmons' successor who submitted it with the arrests undisclosed. Tunstall's application, Respondent's Exhibit 1, indicates that answers to Questions #1 through #12 were hand-written, Question #13 was answered by placing a check mark in the "no" block, and answers to Questions #14 through #17 were type-written. Simmons was the notary who authenticated Tunstall's signature. Tunstall further testified that he began work for Florida Merchant Police in June of 1979, as a uniformed rail crossing guard. In approximately January of 1980, he was assigned to work at an unarmed security guard post. It was after this that he was given an application for licensure by the company. Tunstall's FBI records reveal the following arrests and convictions: 1939 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1940 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1947 - Burglary and attempted larceny, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 1 to 2 years - served 8 months) 1958 - Assault and battery, NJ (Fined) 1958 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1960 - Burglary, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 2 to 3 years) 1975 - Keeping a house of ill fame, FL (Dismissed) Tunstall testified that his civil rights had been restored in New Jersey, but he could not introduce any documentation to support his testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that Leonard Tunstall's application for licensure as an armed guard be denied, and recommends that Tunstall's application for licensure as an unarmed guard be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 24th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Tunstall Suite 996 12555 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33181 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In his application for unarmed guard license, the Petitioner was requested to list all arrests and the dispositions thereof. In response to this inquiry the Petitioner recited that he was arrested in 1973 for discharging a firearm, and that he paid a fine. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner had been arrested and found guilty on numerous occasions from 1942 through 1972 for drunkenness, profanity, burglary, and reckless display of a firearm. He spent time in jail on some of these charges, and time on probation. The Petitioner is a reformed alcoholic. He stopped drinking approximately five years ago, and is now married with two young children. He has had no difficulties with law enforcement agencies since he stopped drinking alcoholic beverages. The Petitioner has made a sincere effort to reform himself, and it appears that he is succeeding in accomplishing that. The Petitioner has been working as an unarmed guard for some months under a temporary permit, and there is no evidence to establish that he has not performed his duties satisfactorily. When the Petitioner was filling out his application for license, he asked a representative of his employer how he should respond. He told the representative that he had been arrested numerous times. This individual told the Petitioner that reflecting the single 1973 arrest was adequate. The Petitioner felt that the inquiry related only to Florida offenses, and most of his law enforcement problems have occurred in the State of Tennessee. It does not appear that the Petitioner willfully falsified the application, but rather that he was mistaken, partially as a result of information that was given him by a person he was entitled to believe would understand the question.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents were negligent by failing to provide proper supervision and control of two security guard employees, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License No. A00-01448; a Class "B" Watchman, Guard or Patrol Agency License No. B00-01042; and a Class "DS" Guard School License No. DS89-00077. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has held a Class "C" Private Investigator License No. C87-00645, a Class "DI" Guard Instructor License No. DI89- 00275, a Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit No. G88-00869, and a Class "M" Manager License No. M90-00046. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has been the Vice-President of Respondent U.S. Security, and Juan Cabrera and Octavio Valdez were employees of Respondent U.S. Security. At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has provided supervision of its security guards (including Cabrera and Valdez) through patrol supervisors, assistant area managers, and area managers. Pursuant to that three-tier level of supervision, every guard post was checked by a supervisor almost every night as part of Respondent U.S. Security's regular supervisory procedures. For several years, Respondent U.S. Security had in effect a contract with Flamingo Plaza, an industrial complex in Hialeah, Florida, to provide unarmed guard services to Flamingo Plaza. That contract was in effect on October 23, 1989. When Cabrera was first employed by Respondent U.S. Security, he was assigned to perform unarmed guard services at a construction site for the Carnival Cruise Lines building. On his first day at that post, construction workers noticed that he was armed. When Brian Pierce, the area manager, came to the post approximately one hour later, the construction workers advised Pierce that Cabrera was armed. Pierce immediately reprimanded Cabrera, reminding Cabrera that the post was an unarmed guard post and that Cabrera was prohibited from being armed while on duty at that post. He made Cabrera lock his gun in his car. Thereafter, no one saw Cabrera with a firearm at that unarmed post. Cabrera was subsequently reassigned to perform guard services at the unarmed guard post located at Flamingo Plaza. On his first day at that assignment, James Cee, the property manager at Flamingo Plaza, saw Cabrera with a firearm while on duty and reported that to Brian Pierce. Pierce reprimanded Cabrera in front of Cee and instructed him not to return to the post with a firearm since it was an unarmed post. Thereafter, there were no further complaints regarding Cabrera carrying a firearm while at Flamingo Plaza although Cabrera continued his assignment at Flamingo Plaza for approximately three or four more months. After Pierce reprimanded Cabrera for appearing at Flamingo Plaza on his first day with a firearm, however, on one occasion Mark McCray, the assistant area manager, saw Cabrera at Flamingo Plaza wearing a jacket while on duty. Visible below the jacket was the bottom of a holster. Cabrera was specifically ordered by McCray not to wear a holster while on duty at an unarmed post. Cabrera was not armed on that occasion. There were no other reports that Cabrera wore a holster at Flamingo Plaza on any other occasion. On October 23, 1989, a shooting incident involving Cabrera took place at the Flamingo Plaza. Upon being notified of the incident Respondent U.S. Security immediately suspended Cabrera and fired him on the following day. Criminal charges were filed against Cabrera based on that shooting incident, and those charges remained pending at the time of the final hearing in this cause. Petitioner immediately conducted an investigation of the incident and of Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of its unarmed guard employees. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner determined there were no violations of the statutes regulating the security guard industry and closed its file. Thereafter, Cabrera, while the criminal charges were pending against him, appeared on television and gave statements which directly contradicted the evidence obtained by Petitioner in its investigation. As a result of those statements made by Cabrera and pressure exerted by the news media, Petitioner reopened its investigation and subsequently issued the Administrative Complaint which is involved in this proceeding. Respondents were not aware that Juan Cabrera or Octavio Valdez had firearms in their possession while on duty on October 23, 1989, when their assigned duties did not require firearms. Further, there is no reason that Respondents should have known that Cabrera or Valdez had firearms in their possession on that occasion. It is standard procedure for Respondent U.S. Security's supervisors to provide all security guards with "post orders" prior to each guard beginning a new post assignment. Among other things, this document notifies the guard as to whether the post calls for armed or unarmed personnel. Respondent U.S. Security ensures that the guard reads and understands the post orders prior to beginning his shift. On October 23, 1989, Respondent U.S. Security had procedures set up for the hiring, training, and supervision of security guards, both armed and unarmed. Respondent U.S. Security had in place procedures for taking disciplinary action against employees. Those disciplinary guidelines included the exercise of judgment by the supervisory personnel involved. If an employee did something prohibited, the employee was specifically reprimanded and instructed not to engage in that conduct again. If the employee engaged in the same conduct again, he would be fired immediately for disobeying direct orders. Respondent U.S. Security did not have a specific policy directed at a guard appearing at an unarmed post with a firearm or with only a holster because such conduct simply did not occur. Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of security guards comply with or exceed the procedures utilized in the industry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4840 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 3-7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2 and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8 and 9 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Florida Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Norman S. Segall, Esquire Bentata Hoet & Associates and Zamora Segall Lacasa & Schere 3191 Coral Way Third Floor, Madison Circle Miami, Florida 33145 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 37 years old. In 1985 and 1986, he was employed as a security guard in Cocoa, Florida. On October 17, 1968, he was arrested in Brevard County, Florida, and charged with a felony -- breaking in and entering with an intent to commit the misdemeanor of petit larceny. Petitioner and a friend had broken into a laundromat with the intent to break into a soda machine. Petitioner pled guilty to the felony. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Shortly thereafter, the sentence was set aside, and Petitioner was placed on probation. Petitioner was arrested for separate violation of the terms of his probation on November 6, 1969; August 18, 1970; January 3, 1977; and January 17, 1977. He was also arrested on May 29, 1974, in Melbourne, Florida, and charged with disorderly conduct -- prowling. Shortly after the May, 1974, arrest, Petitioner was referred to Brevard County, Division of Mental Health, for treatment. He was committed to the state mental health facility at Chattahoochee, Florida for further treatment at that time. Respondent's civil rights have never been restored after the felony conviction in 1968. On July 17, 1986, Petitioner executed his Application for Unarmed Guard License, the denial of this application resulted in the present hearing. In response to Question No. 13, which requires that the applicant list all arrests, Petitioner listed only "Breakin & Enting" (sic) in December, 1966 (sic).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license as an unarmed guard under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3005S TREATMENT ACCORDED RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Findings 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are accepted. Findings 2 and 3 are rejected in part as not supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Grady Griffis, Jr. 255 West Lucas Road Apartment No. E-322 Merritt Island, Florida 32952
Findings Of Fact The proceeding came on for hearing on the Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license. The Respondent, Department of State/Division of Licensing, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of security guards. The Respondent, on February 15, 1982, served notice on the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for license, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the cause was set for hearing as delineated in the notice. Upon timely convening the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1982, the Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned and the Respondent and the Respondent's witness remained in the hearing room for approximately one hour in hopes that the Petitioner might appear. The Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned entered on the record the fact of the Petitioner's default and the fact that all concerned remained in the hearing room awaiting the Petitioner's arrival for approximately one hour. Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Karl Harry Wilson be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Karl Harry Wilson Aquarius Restaurant Aquarius Condominium Route A1A 2751 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stephan Nall, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
