The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Pursuant to section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints and taking disciplinary action against persons holding certificates as law enforcement officers. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, having been issued certificate number 248318 on April 28, 2005. Upon receiving his certification, Respondent accepted a position as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol. Events of April 18, 2008 At approximately 9:30 p.m. on April 18, 2008, Ms. Diana Agudelo was driving alone on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. Respondent, who was on solo patrol in his marked Florida Highway Patrol cruiser, initiated a traffic stop of Ms. Agudelo for exceeding the speed limit. Respondent exited his cruiser, approached the driver's window of Ms. Agudelo's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. While he did so, Respondent stared——with, in Ms. Agudelo's words, a "perverted" expression on his face——at her breasts and directed the beam of his flashlight at the same part of her anatomy. Eventually, Respondent requested, and received, Ms. Agudelo's driver's license, at which point he returned to his patrol cruiser while Ms. Agudelo waited in her vehicle. A short time later, Respondent walked back to Ms. Agudelo's vehicle and requested that she accompany him to his patrol cruiser. Ms. Agudelo complied with the request and followed Respondent to his vehicle. At that point, Respondent sat down in the driver's seat of his patrol car and asked Ms. Agudelo to get inside the vehicle with him. Ms. Agudelo declined the invitation. While Ms. Agudelo stood near the window of the patrol vehicle, Respondent continued to engage her in conversation. As he did, Respondent continued to stare at (and direct the beam of his flashlight on) Ms. Agudelo's breasts. A short time thereafter, Respondent decided to escort Ms. Agudelo back to her vehicle. While walking behind Ms. Agudelo, Respondent intentionally, and without justification, touched Ms. Agudelo's buttocks without her consent. Understandably intimidated, Ms. Agudelo made no comment in response to the unwanted contact. Once she reached her vehicle, Ms. Agudelo sat down in the driver's seat and closed the door. As Respondent leaned through the driver's window and continued to converse with Ms. Agudelo, he intentionally touched her breasts with his hand. Ms. Agudelo did not consent to the contact. Eventually, Respondent moved away from the window and advised Ms. Agudelo that she was free to leave. Respondent did not issue Ms. Agudelo a speeding ticket or a written warning. Correctly believing that Respondent's behavior constituted sexual harassment, Ms. Agudelo contacted law enforcement shortly after the incident. An investigation ensued, during which Ms. Agudelo identified Respondent from a photographic lineup.1 Events of July 28, 2006 During the evening of July 28, 2006, Erin Weigel, a 21-year-old female, was driving alone in her vehicle on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. After she missed her intended turn, Ms. Weigel decided to exit the interstate and ask for directions. While stopped at a red light near the interstate, Ms. Weigel noticed a marked Florida Highway Patrol vehicle——occupied solely by Respondent——at rest in an adjacent lane. After Ms. Weigel gained Respondent's attention, she advised him that she was lost and in need of assistance. Respondent instructed Ms. Weigel to follow his vehicle, at which point he led her to a poorly lit, deserted parking lot. Inconveniently, Respondent parked in such a manner that Ms. Weigel would have been unable to re-enter the roadway unless Respondent moved his patrol vehicle. Respondent exited his patrol car, approached the driver's side window of Ms. Weigel's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. Almost immediately, Respondent made an unsolicited inquiry regarding Ms. Weigel's relationship status. Specifically, Respondent asked, "Do you have a boyfriend," to which Ms. Weigel replied that she did. Upon being informed that she had a boyfriend, Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to produce her driver's license. Although Ms. Weigel was confused by the request, she decided to comply and reached for her purse, which was located on the passenger's seat. As she did so, Respondent aimed the beam of his flashlight down Ms. Weigel's shirt (she was wearing a v-neck tank top) and remarked, "You know what I want to see." Ms. Weigel responded by stating, "Excuse me," at which point Respondent announced, "I want to see your breasts." In response to the inappropriate and unwelcome demand, Ms. Weigel informed Respondent that she wanted to leave. At that point or shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Ms. Weigel that he thought she was pretty, he wanted to take her on a date, and that he would let her leave once she gave him her cell phone number. Although Ms. Weigel did not want to give Respondent her phone number and had no wish to date him, she relented in the hope that Respondent would keep his word and allow her to drive away. After he received Ms. Weigel's phone number, Respondent did not immediately allow her to leave. Instead, Respondent told Ms. Weigel that she seemed "a little intoxicated," notwithstanding the fact that she was not impaired and had consumed no alcoholic beverages that evening. Although Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to exit her vehicle, she held her ground and refused to comply. Eventually, Respondent ended the encounter and allowed Ms. Weigel to drive away. Ms. Weigel subsequently reported the incident to the Florida Highway Patrol. During the investigation that ensued,2 Ms. Weigel identified Respondent in a photographic lineup as the trooper involved in the July 28, 2006, incident.3 Other Allegations As a licensed law enforcement officer with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent was granted access to Driver and Vehicle Information Database ("DAVID"), which is maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DAVID is a secure database that contains confidential information regarding motorists, which includes addresses, photographs, driving records, and vehicle descriptions. Each time an authorized person accesses DAVID, the user is required to acknowledge that the system is being utilized for legitimate law enforcement or criminal justice purposes. Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation in this matter, it is undisputed that Respondent accessed DAVID on multiple occasions for "personal reasons" and without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.4 However, neither the Prehearing Stipulation nor the evidence presented during the final hearing established what particular benefit Respondent derived——if any—— from his unauthorized use of DAVID. Ultimate Findings The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed a battery upon Ms. Agudelo by touching her breasts and buttocks, and therefore failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned also finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent's behavior toward Ms. Argudelo and Ms. Weigel constitutes misuse of his position as a law enforcement officer, and thus Respondent failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned further determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent's accessing of the DAVID system for personal reasons constituted misuse of his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1981, Petitioner issued to Respondent certificate number 02-29029, certifying Respondent as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. On March 4, 1987, Respondent, who was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department, was on duty at Port Everglades in Broward County, Florida. At the time, Port Everglades was closed to the public between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. At approximately 4:00 a.m. on March 4, 1987, a car approached the front gate of the Port. Present in the guard house at the front gate at the time were Port security officers Joel Myers and William Updegraff, along with Respondent. Myers stepped out of the guard house and stopped the vehicle at the front gate. He asked the driver and passenger where they were going. The driver answered incoherently and appeared to be intoxicated. About that time Respondent and Updegraff came out of the guard house and approached the rear of the vehicle. Respondent instructed the driver to pull over as he was being stopped by a deputy of the Sheriff's office. The driver instead accelerated and drove into the Port. At no time was there any danger of the car hitting the Respondent, Myers, or Updegraff. Respondent got into his patrol car and began pursuing the vehicle. Myers and Updegraff remained at the guard house. A radio transmission was sent to other employees of the Port advising them that an unauthorized vehicle was in the Port. A few moments later, Donald Leake, a firefighter employed by the Port who had joined in the search, saw the vehicle heading toward the front gate in order to exit the Port. Leake drove his patrol unit beside the vehicle and motioned to the driver to pull over, which the driver did. The vehicle stopped approximately 100 yards from the guard house at the front gate. Leake sent a radio transmission that he had stopped the vehicle in question. He then approached the vehicle on foot and instructed the driver and passenger to place their hands on the steering wheel and the dash of their vehicle. The occupants followed Leake's instructions and offered no resistance to him. It appeared to Leake as though the driver was intoxicated. Leake walked to the rear of the vehicle and obtained the license tag number. He then approached the driver and asked for his driver's license and vehicle registration, which the driver provided to him. The driver's license identified the driver as Rodney Hensen. Myers and Updegraff had observed Leake stop the vehicle, and Updegraff left the guard house and walked to the vehicle in question in order to offer assistance to Leake if Leake needed any. After Updegraff had reachecd the vehicle, Respondent arrived at the scene, got out of his vehicle, approached Leake and Updegraff, handed them his night stick and radio, and opened the driver's door. After opening the door, Respondent began punching the driver in the chest and face, while chastising the driver for running from a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy. Respondent punched Hensen several times with closed fists for a period of approximately 30 seconds. The driver was offering no resistance or threat at the time of the incident and still had his hands on the dash when the punching began. Hensen began crying and kept asking Respondent why Respondent was doing that to him. As he was being punched, he leaned away from Respondent in a defensive position, trying to protect his face with his hands and arms. The passenger kept his hands on the dash while Respondent was punching Hensen, and he offered no resistance or threat to the Respondent. Neither the driver nor the passenger ever struck the Respondent or threatened to strike him. Both remained passive and in defensive positions, leaning away from Respondent. Both Leake and Updegraff repeatedly called out Respondent's name to get his attention and repeatedly told him to stop. Respondent then grabbed Hensen, and pulled him from the vehicle, pushed him up against the car, and handcuffed Hensen behind his back. Respondent then retrieved his night stick, placed it between Hensen's cuffed arms, twisted it, and caused Hensen to roll down the car and fall to the ground, hitting his head against the ground. Respondent then picked up Hensen and placed him in the back seat of Respondent's patrol car. Respondent then commented to Updegraff, "I thought you would have liked to get in on that." As Respondent was handcuffing Hensen, he instructed Leake to remove the passenger and place him face down on the ground. Leake did so, and the passenger was compliant. Respondent sent a radio transmission to the Broward County Sheriff's Office advising that he had made an arrest and had been involved in a fight in doing so. Almost momentarily, other law enforcement officers arrived at the scene. Respondent was not involved in a fight. He struck Hensen repeatedly without provocation, and it was not necessary for Respondent to strike Hensen to effectuate an arrest. During the ensuing investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Respondent admitted striking Hensen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 20th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-6708 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-34 and 36 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 35 and 37 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-7, 9-14, 20 and 21 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15-19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Larson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Tavalario 270 Southeast Second Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 31 years old. He has lived in Florida for the past 11 years. Petitioner works at a rehabilitation center that provides services to individuals with substance abuse problems. He has worked in that job for about a year. As a client advocate, he works with children 16 years of age and older. For ten years Petitioner has served as a volunteer basketball coach in the Flagler County Police Athletic League (PAL). He currently coaches the high-school-aged girls' travel team. Over the years he has coached boys and girls in the fourth grade through the twelfth grade. For three or four years Petitioner has been a volunteer in a church-based youth ministry program. He supervises, mentors, and provides encouragement to the children in the program. Petitioner applied for an educator’s certificate so that he can coach basketball at the high school level. He does not need the certificate to continue coaching in the PAL, but he needs the certificate to work or even volunteer as a high school coach. Petitioner was employed as a certified correctional officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI) for about four years, until September 23, 2007. TCI is a state prison in Volusia County, Florida, operated by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). As Petitioner was driving to work at TCI on September 23, 2007, he saw a team of DOC investigators conducting a drug interdiction at the facility. He pulled his car over to the side of the facility’s entrance road and threw a small package out of the car window before proceeding to the parking lot. TCI staff saw Petitioner throw the package from his car and informed the DOC investigators. The DOC investigators went to the area and recovered the package. The package contained marijuana. It was in a plastic baggie and had been tightly wrapped in paper towels and then covered with medical tape. The manner in which the marijuana was wrapped is consistent with the most common way that drugs are packaged when they are smuggled into a prison. The package was small enough and flat enough to be hidden in a man's boot or around his crotch area and not be detected during a cursory pat-down search. After Petitioner was told by DOC investigators that a drug-sniffing dog alerted to his car, he voluntarily spoke to the investigators and admitted that the package found next to the entrance road was thrown there by him, that he knew it contained marijuana, and that he threw it out of his car when he saw the drug interdiction team at the facility. However, Petitioner denied that he planned to sell or give the marijuana to an inmate or anyone else “inside the walls” of the facility. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he received the marijuana the day before the incident while he was at a fundraising car wash for his PAL basketball team. The children on the basketball team were at the car wash when the marijuana was delivered, as were Petitioner’s children. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that his sister-in-law called him before the car wash and asked him to help her by allowing a friend to bring marijuana for her to Petitioner at the car wash. She said she would later pick it up from Petitioner. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he did not give much thought to her request because she was a family member and one should always help out family members. When the marijuana was delivered, Petitioner was at his car which was a distance away from where the cars were being washed. He wrapped the marijuana in paper towels and medical tape, which he had in his car from a prior injury, so that his children, who were helping wash the cars, would not see it when he drove them home in his car. His sister-in-law did not come to pick up the marijuana after the car wash. He forgot that the marijuana was in his car until he was close to work the next day. When he saw the interdiction team at TCI, he stopped and threw the marijuana out of the car. He then drove into the parking lot, parked his car, and went in to work. Petitioner was immediately arrested after his confession to the DOC investigators. He was charged with possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana and introduction of contraband into a state prison. Both of those charges are felonies, but for reasons not explained in the record, the State Attorney elected not to prosecute either of the charges. Petitioner was immediately fired from TCI after his arrest, and he subsequently lost his certification as a correctional officer. Petitioner testified that he understands that what he did was wrong, that he is sorry for what he did, and that he will never do it again. This testimony appeared to be sincere. The character witnesses who testified on Petitioner’s behalf at the final hearing all testified that Petitioner is a good person and a good role model for the children that he coaches and mentors; that this incident was out of character for Petitioner; and that they have no concerns about Petitioner working with children. This testimony was sincere and clearly heartfelt. Although the DOC investigators weighed the marijuana while it was still wrapped and determined that it weighed 37.8 grams, they did not weigh the marijuana itself after removing it from its packaging. There is no competent evidence in this record as to the weight of the marijuana. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the amount of marijuana Petitioner threw from his car would have constituted a felony or a misdemeanor. Similarly, there is no competent evidence in this record as to whether Petitioner was on the grounds of a state prison when he threw the marijuana from his car. There are no security fences, no checkpoints, and no security towers before one reaches the signage for the correctional facility and its attendant structures. Petitioner believed that he would have been on prison property if he had passed by the signage for the facility and had crossed the road surrounding the perimeter of the prison. One of the DOC investigators testified that the property boundary was several hundred yards before the entrance sign. The photographs admitted in evidence visually suggest that the correctional facility's property commences beyond the sign and beyond the location where Petitioner threw out the marijuana. There is no competent evidence as to whether Petitioner was on state property with the marijuana in his possession. Petitioner denies that he intended to introduce contraband into the correctional facility. Rather, his actions in throwing the marijuana out of his car at a location he believed to be outside of the facility's property suggest he did not intend to bring the contraband onto the grounds of the facility. Petitioner has met the qualifications for obtaining an educator's certificate to enable him to coach basketball on the high-school level.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 2nd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sidney M. Nowell, Esquire Justin T. Peterson, Esquire Nowell & Associates, P.A. 1100 East Moody Boulevard Post Office Box 819 Bunnell, Florida 32110-0819 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mariam Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas F. Gorman, Jr., was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-33145 on March 22, 1983. When the events herein occurred, Gorman was employed as a police officer for the City of Vero Beach. On an undisclosed date in 1985, but prior to May 28, 1985, the husband of Kristie Coleman made a complaint with the Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) that his eighteen year old wife had been sexually harassed by a black police officer. After being told the City had no black police officers, the husband then apparently identified respondent, who is white, as being the culprit. An investigation of the husband's complaint was conducted by the VBPD, but it was unable to "verify" the charges. The VBPD then decided to initiate a separate investigation of respondent. To do so, it solicited the aid and assistance of Kristie Coleman, who, at the insistence of the chief of police, agreed to wear a concealed microphone on her person. The purpose of the microphone was allegedly to investigate and intercept evidence of a criminal act on the part of Gorman. Kristie was instructed to stand outside her apartment whenever she saw respondent drive by in his police car so as to make herself visible to respondent. The police chief was explicit in his instructions that their encounter take place while Gorman was on duty. At the same time, two surveillance teams were placed on or near Kristie's premises, one in her bedroom and the other outside her apartment, and they activated recording equipment designed to monitor and record conversations between the two. She was also instructed to tell Gorman that she had to use the bathroom if he entered her apartment and placed a hand on her leg. This was a predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room and make their presence known to Gorman. There was no court order approving the use of the concealed microphone. At approximately 6:38 p.m. on May 28, 1985, respondent drove by Kristie's apartment. It is stipulated that respondent was in uniform and on duty at that time. Upon seeing Kristie emerge from her apartment, Gorman stopped and the two began a conversation. During the course of the evening Gorman left the premises and returned six separate times after the first visit at 6:38 p.m. These return visits occurred at 7:08 p.m., 7:34 p.m., 8:22 p.m., 8:59 p.m., 9:04 p.m. and 9:20 p.m. However, it was not until the seventh visit that Gorman actually entered Kristie's apartment. On each visit, their conversations were recorded by the hidden microphone worn by Kristie. The transcript of the conversation was not transcribed by the parties, and portion of the recorded conversation are inaudible due to external noises such as traffic and the engine noise of respondent's vehicle. As a result of the VBPD surveillance activities, respondent was offered a choice of being terminated from the police force or voluntarily resigning. Gorman chose the latter. The administrative complaint herein was then filed by petitioner thereby prompting the formal hearing in this matter. It charges that Gorman "did agree with Kristina Coleman to engage in sexual intercourse with her in Kristina's apartment while the Respondent was on duty as a Vero Beach police officer." The tape reveals that Gorman and Coleman had known each other, at least by sight, prior to May 28, 1985. The two had also recently met when Gorman, while on duty, stopped Coleman one evening for a suspected moving violation. However, she was not ticketed by Gorman, and at that time Coleman told Gorman she wanted to see him again. Throughout the tape recorded meetings on May 28, Coleman repeatedly attempted to get Gorman to acknowledge that he had not given her a ticket in return for sexual favors. Gorman denied this was true each time the subject was raised, and there is no evidence to indicate that was the case. As noted earlier, the tape recording is not of the highest quality, and several parts of the conversation are either inaudible or partially obscured by other noises. Nonetheless, the following relevant facts are found from the more than one hour of recorded conversations, most of which were nothing more than casual conversation between the two. After several return visits to her apartment that evening, Gorman made several Flattering comments to Kristie, such as how "beautiful" she was, that she had a nice personality, and how Gorman was attracted to her. Gorman asked if he could see her after he was off-duty, but Kristie declined. As the evening went on, Kristie told Gorman that her sister would arrive at her apartment at 11:00 p.m. to spend the night, and that the few hours before 11.00 p.m. would be the "only time" she had to meet with him. Although Gorman was reluctant to go to her apartment while on duty, Kristie told him that once she got "started," she wanted Gorman to finish the job. She also asked him if he was "too chicken-shit to come into (her) house." On his last visit to her apartment that evening, Gorman accepted her offer to come into the apartment. After taking off his gun and holster at Kristie's request, and declining an offer of a beer from Kristie, Gorman then said what appears to the undersigned to be "Let's do it." Kristie then gave the predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room. No sexual intercourse occurred and there is no evidence that respondent was charged with a violating any state or municipal law by the foregoing conduct. There was no specific reference to sexual intercourse in the conversations, although it can be reasonably inferred that Kristie was suggesting this to Gorman, and that he intended to accept her offer. There was no evidence that Gorman's conduct constituted what the agency perceived to be a lack of good moral character within the meaning of its rules or governing statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against Thomas F. Gorman, Jr. be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wayne R. McDonough, Esquire P. O. Box 1690 Fort Pierce, Florida 32960 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case No.: 85-3590 CJSTC Case No.: L-33145 THOMAS F. GORMAN, JR., Certificate Number: 02-33145 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 23, 1989, and was issued certificate number 03-88-502-07. Respondent was employed as a certified correctional officer by the Broward County Sheriff's Office at the time of the incidents described in the Amended Administrative Complaint. On April 15, 1989, Respondent was operating his automobile on the 67th Street on-ramp to the eastbound lanes of the Palmetto Expressway between 4:00 and 4:30 P.M. Irene Alvarez, Respondent's fiancee, was a passenger in Respondent's automobile. Respondent's automobile, a Toyota Corolla station wagon, was experiencing mechanical difficulties and could not accelerate rapidly. On April 15, 1989, Kayode Eyinfunjowo and Godfrey Brown were travelling together to a soccer game in a Datsun 280-Z that was owned and operated by Mr. Eyinfunjowo. Mr. Eyinfunjowo's car was a two-door hardtop (not a T-top) with darkened windows. When Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle entered the 67th Street on- ramp to the eastbound lanes of the Palmetto Express, Mr. Eyinfunjowo and Mr. Brown first noticed Respondent's vehicle in front of them. Because of the mechanical problems Respondent was operating his vehicle at less than 10 miles per hour. Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle could not pass Respondent's vehicle because the on-ramp was only one lane. As a consequence of the slow rate of speed of Respondent's vehicle and the one lane of traffic on the on-ramp, Mr. Eyinfunjowo was required to drive his car at a much slower speed than he wanted. Once both vehicles were on Palmetto Expressway, Respondent's vehicle continued to travel very slowly in the extreme right hand lane of traffic 1/ and Mr. Eyinfunjowo began to pass Respondent in the adjoining lane of traffic. As Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle began to pass Respondent's vehicle, Mr. Brown rolled down his window, stuck his head and shoulders outside of the car and said something to Respondent. 2/ There is a conflict in the evidence as to what Mr. Brown said. Mr. Brown testified that he merely inquired as to why Respondent was driving so slowly. Respondent testified that Mr. Brown shouted obscenities. This conflict is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence is that Mr. Brown complained to Respondent about being slowed down by his car and made a profane, derogatory comment about Respondent's car. Mr. Brown did not make any verbal threat against Respondent and Mr. Eyinfunjowo did not verbally communicate with Respondent. Neither Mr. Eyinfunjowo nor Mr. Brown displayed any type of weapon during the incident. Respondent testified that Mr. Eyinfunjowo's tailgated him while coming up the on-ramp and repeatedly blew its horn at him, tried to run him off the road. Respondent also testified that the two vehicles were very close together when Mr. Brown shouted at him and that Mr. Eyinfunjowo slammed on his brakes after he passed Respondent. Mr. Eyinfunjowo and Mr. Brown deny that they tailgated Respondent, tried to run him off the road, or slammed on brakes in front of him. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that the more credible testimony establishes that Mr. Eyinfunjowo followed Respondent very closely, blew his horn at Respondent, pulled up close to Respondent's car while Mr. Brown was shouting at Respondent. The more credible evidence is that Mr. Eyinfunjowo did not try to run Respondent off the road and that he did not slam on his brakes after he passed Respondent. After Mr. Brown shouted at him, Respondent did not verbally respond. When Mr. Brown saw Respondent reach for an object, he believed that Respondent was reaching for a weapon and told Mr. Eyinfunjowo to accelerate. Mr. Eyinfunjowo immediately accelerated and began to distance his vehicle from that of the Respondent. The Respondent, who was driving his vehicle at approximately 5 miles per hour, reached with his right hand for a firearm, 3/ removed the firearm from his glove compartment, shifted the firearm to his left hand, and, while steering the car with his right hand, stuck the gun out of the window and discharged the firearm. There is a dispute in the evidence as to whether Respondent shot once or twice. Respondent admits that he shot once. Mr. Eyinfunjowo and Mr. Brown testified that they heard two shots. The greater weight of the evidence and the more credible testimony established that Respondent shot the firearm twice. At the time the shots were discharged, Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle was moving away from Respondent's vehicle and the occupants thereof were very frightened. When the first shot was fired, Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle was between one and two lengths ahead of Respondent's vehicle. When the second shot was fired, Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle was between three and six car lengths ahead of Respondent's vehicle. During this series of events, Mr. Brown's head and shoulders were out of the window. There was also a dispute as to the direction of the shots. Mr. Brown testified that it appeared that the firearm was being aimed at him. Respondent testified that he aimed well to the right of Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle in the direction of a vacant field. The more credible evidence is that Respondent was not attempting to shoot Mr. Brown and that he aimed to the right of Mr. Eyinfunjowo's vehicle. Respondent has had training as a marksman in both his right and his left hand. During his training to become a certified officer, he was qualified as a "Sharpshooter", which is the second highest rating for marksmanship. When Mr. Brown began shouting at the Respondent, Ms. Alvarez who was approximately 2 1/2 months pregnant and had experienced difficulties with her pregnancy, became frightened and began screaming. Respondent testified that he also became frightened and that the only reason he discharged his firearm was to scare off Mr. Eyinfunjowo and Mr. Brown. After the gunshots, Mr. Eyinfunjowo drove away rapidly and stopped on the Palmetto Expressway near 57th Avenue after he saw a Metro-Dade police car. Respondent stopped at this same exit to try to find a telephone to report the incident. As Mr. Eyinfunjowo and Mr. Brown flagged down the police car, Mr. Brown saw Respondent stop his car at a distance and begin to approach them. Mr. Brown testified that Respondent had his gun in hand. Respondent testified that his gun was in the car. The conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent had his gun in his hand when he first saw Mr. Brown after both vehicles had stopped, but that Respondent made no attempt to fire at Mr. Brown or to threaten him with the firearm. Once the police officers were on hand, Respondent identified himself for the first time as a correctional officer. Respondent was not wearing a uniform and he was not driving a marked police car. Respondent cooperated with the police officers at the scene and during subsequent investigation. Although the police officer who conducted the investigation of this proceeding recommended that criminal charges be brought against Respondent, the State Attorney's office declined to prosecute. None of the participants in this incident had been drinking alcohol. April 15, 1989, was a clear, sunny day. Prior to firing his firearm, Respondent did not display his correctional officer badge or attempt to identify himself as an officer. Respondent was not on duty at the times pertinent hereto. Shortly after this incident, Respondent's employment with the Broward County Sheriff's Office was terminated. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was operating a restaurant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein, which finds that Respondent failed to maintain the qualification of good moral character, and which suspends Respondent's certification for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At or about 5:30 a.m., July 25, 1977, Trooper Vayda, while on radar patrol on the I-95 just north of the Dade County line, observed a car proceeding south at a speed of 85 m.p.h. and gave chase with his identification lights flashing. When the suspect was overtaken by Trooper Vayda suspect swerved towards Vayda causing the latter to move two wheels off the paved surface to avoid collision. The suspect subsequently left the I-95 at the 135th Street exit and while on the ramp with no other vehicles in view Vayda fired one shot which struck suspect's vehicle on the left side just above the bumper. Suspect ran through the stop light at 135th Street and rejoined the I-95 pursued by Vayda. Suspect again exited the I-95 at 125th Street and after turning east on 125th Street Vayda fired a second shot hitting suspect's right tail light. Suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck another car. Vayda stopped his vehicle, got out and told the suspect to get out of his car. Suspect then restarted his car and started eastward with Vayda in pursuit. In the interim Vayda had, via radio, alerted the Highway Patrol office of the chase and requested assistance. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers the suspect was subsequently apprehended on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida and found to be driving a stolen car. During the chase Vayda had no information to lead him to believe suspect was other than a speeder. As a result of firing the shots Vayda was suspended from duty for a period of eight hours by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit 5, the disciplinary record of Vayda, shows that Vayda was suspended for eight hours without pay on September 7, 1977 for speeding on the Florida Turnpike on July 22, 1977. Vayda was aware of the contents of General Orders 17, 20 and 43 of the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Issue The issues in the case arc whether Respondent, on October 22, 1987, unlawfully and intentionally touched or struck Mary Ann Lanning and Denise Lanning and, if so, whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which require that a law enforcement officer have good moral character, and thus failed to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) and (7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent on December 31, 1970. Respondent received Certificate Number GF-1813. At the time of the events in question, Respondent was a trooper employed by the Florida Highway Patrol. On the evening of October 21, 1987, Respondent was at the office where he held a part-time job. At home were Respondent's wife, two young children born of their marriage, and two older daughters born of a prior marriage of Respondent. The two older daughters are Kim, who was then 15 years old, and Chris, who was then 16 years old. Respondent's wife and the two older daughters got into an argument, and the daughters angrily went to a neighbor's home a couple of houses away. The daughters had undergone significant emotional turmoil, largely the result of successive abandonments by their natural mother, who was Respondent's first wife, and then their adoptive mother, who was Respondent's second wife. The neighbor's house was the Lanning residence where Mary Ann Lanning and her daughter Denise lived. Denise was Kim's close friend and had been for several years. Kim and Chris were upset and crying when they arrived at the Lanning's home. Mrs. Lanning and Denise comforted them. In the meantime, Respondent's wife called him at about 6:00 p.m. and informed him of the problem. Respondent was not overly surprised. The two girls had recently been misbehaving, and relations between them and their father had been strained. Respondent and his wife, who were due to go to church that night, agreed, as was customary, that they would drive separately and meet at church. Respondent instructed his wife to lock up the house, which contained valuable personal items, including firearms. When Respondent and his wife returned from church that evening, his daughters were still gone, but a note was attached to the front door. The note informed Respondent that they were okay. The note also began to recite the telephone number at which they could be reached. However, Chris, unknown to Kim, had ripped the number off from the note before posting it on the door. At this point, one of the first of many factual disputes emerges. Although it concerns a matter that is not, in itself, of critical importance, Respondent and Mrs. Lanning advance their varying viewpoints with vehemence. The animosity between Respondent and Mrs. Lanning is incomprehensible as they were barely acquainted prior to the evening in question, and neither of them testified to any prior disagreements. In any event, it has proven impossible to credit the testimony of either of them, when their testimony is in dispute. The excitability of Mrs. Lanning coupled with the impulsiveness and arrogance of Respondent, which probably went a long way toward generating a series of failed communications, also detracted from their credibility as witnesses. Therefore, in the many instances in which their testimony is in dispute, the testimony of Respondent alone has been used to construct the events of the following eighteen hours or so, unless otherwise indicated. As the evening progressed, Chris and Kim, who were accompanied by Denise at least part of the way, went back home to see if they could get into the house to get their clothes. They intentionally went when they knew everyone would be gone at church. However, they found that they could not gain access to the house. The daughters may have visited their house a couple of more times when they knew that no one would be home. The record does not disclose whether they returned to try different means to get into the locked house, to mislead Mrs. Lanning into thinking that they were genuinely trying to contact Respondent and his wife, or to entertain themselves by walking around their neighborhood at night. Mrs. Lanning did not try to telephone Respondent or his wife that evening, although this apparently is due to her justifiable belief that they knew where the children were. An uneventful evening followed during which Chris and Kim slept at the Lanning's home and generally enjoyed themselves. Although she was good friends with Denise, Chris had never spent an evening at her friend's house. Respondent was a strong disciplinarian. The following morning, which was a school day, Chris and Kim again tried to reenter their house when they knew their stepmother would be taking their stepsister to school. Unable to gain access to their house and without school clothes, Chris and Kim decided to remain at the Lanning's home that day, and Denise stayed home with them. Later that morning, Mrs. Lanning telephoned Respondent at work and left a message for him to call her. As soon as he was able, Respondent returned the call. The time was about 10:00 a.m. Although the conversation was memorable, neither Mrs. Lanning nor Respondent remembers the conversation in the same terms. They agree that Mrs. Lanning told Respondent that his daughters were at her house, they were upset, and Respondent's house was locked. The remainder of the conversation is based on the testimony of Respondent. Frequently calling her "babe" and "darling," notwithstanding Mrs. Lanning's objections to this offensive practice, Respondent informed Mrs. Lanning that the house would remain locked as long as no one was at home. When Mrs. Lanning offered her advice that he should allow the girls to eat eggs, Respondent replied, "Hey, babe, that's none of your business." Mrs. Lanning retorted, "I'm not going to send [the children] down to that bitch [Respondent's third wife]." Respondent then informed Mrs. Lanning that he would pick up his daughters when he returned home from work that afternoon. At this point, Respondent called his wife and related the conversation, omitting the offensive reference to her. Respondent's wife said that she had reported the girls as missing persons when they had not returned from school that afternoon. At about 3:30 p.m., Respondent arrived home still in uniform and in a marked patrol car. When he greeted his wife, he learned that Mrs. Lanning had spoken with an older daughter of Respondent. The older daughter, who lived in St. Cloud, had called Respondent's wife and told her that Mrs. Lanning was crazy and they should get the children as soon as possible. Respondent immediately went to Mrs. Lanning's house, still in uniform and still wearing his gun. He knocked on the door. Mrs. Lanning answered the door by opening it slightly. Chris, Kim, Denise, and a friend, Deanna, were in the vicinity of the patio in the back, not clearly visible from the doorway. When the door opened partially, Respondent stepped into the house, uninvited and obviously unwelcome. When Respondent entered the house, Mrs. Lanning exhorted him loudly to leave. Respondent said that he just wanted his kids and would leave once he had them. Mrs. Lanning tried to push him out the door. He warned her not to. She kept trying to push him out the door. In a raised voice and threatening tone, Respondent insisted, "Hey, babe, I want my kids and I want them now." As Respondent testified, "It took 20 years of training and every fiber of my being not to go over there and strangle her." Resisting this impulse, Respondent instead grabbed the wrist of Mrs. Lanning and informed her, "That's it, darling. You're under arrest." When she asked what was the charge, he told her, "Well, we'll start off with kidnapping." Respondent was aware that Mrs. Lanning was not guilty of kidnapping. Respondent then turned Mrs. Lanning's arm behind her back. The children entered the room. Denise came to the aid of her mother. She tried to grab Respondent, who informed her: "Get your hands off me, toots." Denise then called him and his wife sons of a bitch. Although Respondent denies touching Denise, his daughter, Kim, whose testimony was generally favorable to her father, testified that Respondent took Denise by the wrist and pushed her away. Kim's testimony is credited. In a similar regard, Kim testified that she saw her father remove a telephone from Mrs. Lanning's hand in an attempt to prevent her from calling the police. Kim's testimony is credited on this point as well. After additional heated exchanges, Respondent was unable to persuade his daughters to return home. He instead left the Lanning's home a few minutes before a deputy from the Orange County Sheriff's Office arrived on the scene in response to calls from Mrs. Lanning and Denise. Changing into civilian clothes, Respondent prepared himself to speak with the deputy. The deputy initially treated the call as a neighborhood dispute, which he tried to settle. He spoke first with Mrs. Lanning and found her sensible and composed. She reported nothing of being touched by Respondent, only that he had forced his way into her home. The deputy then went to Respondent's house and found him in a similar state. The atmosphere deteriorated when the deputy brought Respondent back with him to Mrs. Lanning's house to apologize. Mrs. Lanning became irate and hostile. Recognizing that he was involved in a domestic disturbance, the deputy wisely called for supervisory assistance. After a corporal arrived on the scene, the deputy issued Respondent a trespass warning, which ordered him to stay off Mrs. Lanning's property. Notwithstanding the best efforts of both law enforcement officers, they could not mollify Mrs. Lanning. Mrs. Lanning later complained to the Orange County Sheriff's Office about the deputy and corporal. The record discloses no basis whatsoever for such complaint. To the contrary, the timely decision of the deputy to involve a supervisor in the investigation negates any suggestion that he intended to treat Respondent deferentially because of his status as a law enforcement officer. As a result of the above-described event, Respondent was terminated from the Florida Highway Patrol. Mrs. Lanning claims that she sustained a dislocated shoulder and serious injuries to her arm, back, and neck. She now suffers from bursitis and arthritis as a result of the incident. This testimony is not credited. Mrs. Lanning proved capable of complaining when she felt the need, yet she said nothing of a dislocated shoulder, pain, or even the physical touching when she first spoke with the deputy. The case involves more than Respondent's demonstrated inability to regain custody of his daughters in a prudent and appropriate manner. The case involves more than a lack of "people skills," such as in repeatedly calling a woman "babe" or "darling," especially after she has asked not to be called that, in a transparent effort to intimidate and patronize. The case involves a uniformed, armed law enforcement officer, trembling with rage for perceived but insignificant threats to his authority, allowing fury to overwhelm his reason and ignoring the critical distinctions among his roles as trooper, parent, and neighbor. Under these facts, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character. On August 16, 1988, the Office of the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit filed a two count information alleging that Respondent committed the offense of battery upon Mrs. Lanning and her daughter. On November 10, 1988, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges in Orange County Court. In his twenty-one years with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent maintained a good record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and suspending his certificate for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 10-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 22-43: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings I, a-c: rejected as not findings of fact. II: adopted in substance except "near-perfect" record rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. II, a-b: adopted or adopted in substance. II, c: first sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder adopted in substance. II, d: adopted. II, e: rejected as subordinate. II, f-k: adopted or adopted in substance, although the proposed facts do not adequately describe the incident at Mrs. Lanning's house. II, l: adopted in substance except that complaint filed against Mrs. Lanning is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Attorney Douglas E. Whitney Maitland Springs Office Park 377 Maitland Avenue, Suite 101 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Jeffrey Long Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact On December 6, 1985, Petitioner, Johnnie J. Williams, filed an application with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department), for a Class "G" armed guard license. By letter of April 30, 1986, the Department advised Petitioner that his application had been denied. Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing. The basis of the Department's denial was predicated on its conclusion that Petitioner (a) had failed to list alias names on his application, (b) had, under an alias name of Hubert Jackson, been convicted of aggravated assault, (c) had, under an alias name of Harry Hill, been convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, unlawful possession of central nervous system stimulant, unlawful possession of narcotic drug, and unlawful possession of implements for central nervous system stimulant, (d) had failed to submit a sufficient Firearms Proficiency Certificate, and (e) did not possess a valid Class "D" license. The Department's conclusions were, however, ill founded. Petitioner is not the same person as Hubert Jackson or Harry Hill, and has never been known by a name other than his own. At hearing, the Department agreed to stipulate that it had erred in attributing the offenses committed by Jackson and Hill to the Petitioner, and further agreed that Petitioner possessed a valid and current Class "D" license. With respect to the only other basis for denial, possession of a sufficient Firearms Proficiency Certificate, Petitioner's application facially complied with the Department's requirements and was not shown to be lacking in any particular. Although the reasons advanced by the Department for denial in its April 30, 1986, letter were ill founded, evidence was presented at hearing concerning three events involving Petitioner which could affect his qualification for licensure. Petitioner has at various times driven a taxi cab for a living, and routinely carried a registered, but unlicensed gun in his cab for personal protection. In 1966, Petitioner was found guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and fined $100 for producing his gun in response to a threat to his person. While its possession in a concealed manner was not legal, the proof established that Petitioner's response was motivated by a well grounded fear that his antagonist was about to assault him with a firearm. In 1970 Petitioner was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm in his taxi cab. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on one year probation with the restriction that he not carry any weapons. Petitioner successfully completed his probation, and is currently possessed of his full civil rights. The final event which could bear on Petitioner's qualifications concerns a domestic disturbance which occurred between him and his wife in March or April 1986. Although Petitioner was arrested as a result of that disturbance, there is no evidence that any physical force was used upon his wife or that Petitioner possessed or exhibited any weapon during the dispute. Subsequently, what ever charges had been made against Petitioner were withdrawn, and no further action was taken. While Petitioner's possession of a weapon, without proper licensure cannot be condoned, his concern for his personal safety can be appreciated. Consequently, the events detailed in paragraph 4 supra, much less the events detailed in paragraph 5 supra, do not detract from the evidence of good moral character Petitioner has been demonstrated to possess, nor his satisfaction of the licensure requirements established by Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application be approved, and that he be issued a Class "G", armed guard, license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of October 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay M. Kolsky, Esquire 239 Northeast 20th Street Miami, Florida 33137 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the CJSTC. On March 29, 1987, He was employed by the City of Clearwater in the uniform patrol division. Respondent graduated from the police academy in 1985, and served one and one-half years with the Belleair Police Department before being hired by the Clearwater Police Department. On the morning of March 29, 1987, while on patrol in a City of Clearwater police car, Respondent drove into the driveway of Lisa Scholl, a young woman occupying that residence. Ms. Scholl heard the engine of a car running in her driveway and came out of the house to inquire why the police car was there. At about the same time, Respondent received a call to investigate a complaint. He told Ms. Scholl he had stopped because her front door was open and that he had to leave to answer the call received on his radio. As a matter of fact, Respondent, who was having marital problems at the time, was intending to ask Ms. Scholl for a date. Respondent had never met Ms. Scholl but had accompanied another police officer to Ms. Scholl's residence some months earlier and was aware of who she was and where she lived. Ms. Scholl surmised Respondent intended to ask her for a date before he received the call on his radio and departed. Shortly thereafter it started raining rather hard. Ms. Scholl glimpsed a man in a yellow slicker crossing the woods alongside her house and became concerned that some criminal activity was happening in her vicinity. She then walked into her bathroom where she saw the face of a man peering through the jaloused window of her bathroom. She screamed, and the man wearing a yellow raincoat ran through the woods toward a police car parked down from her house. Ms. Scholl then called her cousin to come over to her house and she called the police who sent an officer to investigate. During the course of the investigation, Ms. Scholl identified Respondent as the individual she initially spoke to while parked in her driveway and the man she observed peering through her bathroom window. When questioned, Respondent ultimately admitted that he had looked through the window to Ms. Scholl's bathroom but did so only for the purpose of seeing if there was another person in the house. Respondent acknowledged that he had done a stupid thing in looking through a window into Ms. Scholl's home, but contended that no immoral conduct was intended by this act and that his sole purpose was to attempt to learn if some other man was in the house with Ms. Scholl. Respondent's denial of any attempt at voyeurism is supported by Exhibit 2, a psychological evaluation of Respondent. This evaluation found Respondent to be psychologically competent in all respects; a conscientious, hard working individual with a high sense of responsibility and loyalty; with none of the criteria for voyeurism; and highly unlikely to be involved in similar situations in the future.
