The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be disciplined for allegedly operating various security services without a license as charged in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 25, 1989, petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division), received by mail from an anonymous source a copy of a business card reflecting the name of respondent, Robert D. Wingard, and another individual, and indicating that respondent provided the following services: "Executive & V. I. P. Protection, Undercover Investigation, Alarm Technology, Bonding & Courier Work." The card further represented that Wingard held "Lic. No. 34882-809099." The card listed Wingard's address as 4419 Melbourne Street, Punta Gorda, Florida. After receiving the card, a Division investigator, Daniel J. Cabrera, interviewed respondent in Punta Gorda on May 11, 1989. During the course of the interview, respondent acknowledged to Cabrera that he operated a private investigative service, performed the services of a private investigator, operated a security guard agency and performed the services of a security guard, all under the name of Security Enforcement Specialists. However, Wingard maintained he had all necessary licenses from the state. According to Charlotte County records, Wingard applied for and was issued an occupational license by that county on June 18, 1988. The administrative complaint has used that date as the date on which Wingard commenced providing the above services. An examination of Division records indicated that Wingard did not hold those licenses needed to operate the services described in finding of fact 2. Therefore, all services being provided by Wingard were performed without the proper licensure from the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the administrative complaint issued against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander 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 27th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Larry J. Gardner (Respondent) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 50721 on October 19, 1982. Respondent has been a correctional officer for sixteen and one-half years. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was employed with the Dade Correctional Institution as a Correctional Sergeant. On June 13, 1995, between 1:00 and 1:30 a.m., Respondent met his friend, Richard Brack, at a bar, Jones Galley II (Galley's Bar); Respondent and Brack were going to go out together. Brack was an employee at Galley's Bar and was just getting off work. While waiting for Brack to get off work, Respondent had one drink. Brack left his vehicle at Galley's Bar. Respondent drove his vehicle, with Brack accompanying him, to the Saga Lounge which was about fifteen minutes from Galley's Bar. They were at Saga Lounge for approximately an hour or an hour and a half during which time they had some drinks. Respondent consumed two to three drinks. Between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m., Brack and Respondent left Saga Lounge. They decided to go to the Miccosukee Indian Gaming Hall (Gaming Hall) which was approximately an hour's drive. Respondent drove his vehicle, with Brack accompanying him, to the Gaming Hall. Respondent and Brack arrived at the Gaming Hall between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m. Respondent parked his vehicle in the Gaming Hall's parking lot. He and Brack, as were other patrons of the Gaming Hall, were observed in the parking lot by Gaming Hall's security personnel, using security cameras. Respondent was observed carrying a knife on the side of his belt. Knives were one of several items prohibited in the Gaming Hall. Upon entering the Gaming Hall, Respondent was approached by a security guard who advised Respondent that he would have to leave his knife in the vehicle. Respondent complied with the request, returning to his vehicle and placing the knife on the dashboard of his vehicle. After complying, Respondent entered the Gaming Hall. The Gaming Hall was almost empty. Respondent and Brack went to the lounge area where they conversed with the bartender and a waitress and consumed two to three drinks. At approximately 7:00 a.m., Officer Gustavo Hernandez, a Miccosukee Police Officer who was on duty at the Gaming Hall, requested Respondent and Brack to leave the lounge area so that revenue collection could take place. It is the procedure of the Gaming Hall to request patrons to leave the area, in which revenue collection is performed, during revenue collection. Officer Hernandez was dressed in his police uniform which has on it, among other things, a badge and insignia, indicating Miccosukee Tribe Police Department, and he was also wearing his firearm. Respondent was being vulgar and obnoxious and asked Officer Hernandez, "Who the fuck are you?" Officer Hernandez responded that he was a Miccosukee Police Officer. Respondent did not believe that Officer Hernandez was a police officer but was a security guard. After further discussion regarding leaving the area for revenue collection, Respondent and Brack cooperated and left the area where the revenue collection was being performed; they went to another area of the Gaming Hall. Respondent was loud and boisterous in the area to which he and Brack had gone, disturbing other patrons. Officer Hernandez again approached Respondent and Brack and requested Respondent to lower his voice. Officer Hernandez also advised Brack that probably neither he (Brack) nor Respondent should drive and that he (Officer Hernandez) would get them a taxi. Approximately ten minutes later, Officer Hernandez observed Respondent walking out of the Gaming Hall to the parking lot. Respondent was going to his vehicle. Officer Hernandez followed Respondent, following approximately six feet behind him, and advised Respondent continuously that he (Respondent) appeared to be intoxicated; that a taxi would be gotten for him; and that, if he got into his vehicle, he would be arrested for DUI, driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent never turned around but continued to his vehicle. When Respondent reached his vehicle, he opened the door, got into the vehicle in the driver's seat, and closed the door. Respondent placed the keys into the ignition and attempted to start the vehicle, but the vehicle would not start. Respondent immediately attempted to start the vehicle again. This time, the vehicle started, and Respondent placed the vehicle in drive and drove away at a high rate of speed. A rapid sequence of events took place from the moment Respondent reached his vehicle to the moment that he drove away. Almost at the same time that Respondent was trying to start the vehicle for a second time, Officer Hernandez reached Respondent's vehicle and informed Respondent that he was under arrest for DUI. At that point in time, Officer Hernandez had placed Respondent under arrest, and Officer Hernandez was attempting to effectuate the arrest. At the time of placing Respondent under arrest, Officer Hernandez did not identify himself as a police officer. Almost simultaneously with Respondent placing the vehicle in drive, Officer Hernandez opened the vehicle's door, but only partially, and reached for the keys in the ignition, reaching as far as the steering column. Almost simultaneously with Respondent driving away, but, immediately before Officer Hernandez opened the door, Respondent had started the vehicle and had placed the vehicle in drive. As Respondent began driving away, the partially open door closed from the forward movement of the vehicle, striking Officer Hernandez's left arm as it was closing.1 The evidence is clear and convincing and a finding is made that at no time did Respondent intend to touch or strike Officer Hernandez or for the door to strike Officer Hernandez. However, the evidence is not clear and convincing and a finding is not made that Officer Hernandez touched Respondent's shoulder and that Respondent, with his hand, pushed Officer Hernandez back when Officer Hernandez reached into the vehicle.2 Respondent admits that he heard Officer Hernandez state that he (Respondent) was under arrest at the same time that he was driving away. Respondent did not stop his vehicle. Officer Hernandez pursued Respondent in his police cruiser but stopped due to safety reasons because of the traffic. There was no evidence that Officer Hernandez used his police siren or lights or called for assistance during the pursuit. Before Officer Hernandez stopped the pursuit, he was able to get Respondent's vehicle tag number which was used to locate Respondent. Respondent was unaware that Officer Hernandez was pursuing him. Respondent was later arrested.3 Respondent was disciplined by his employer for the incident, including the DUI. He received a 30-day suspension which was reduced, due to a settlement agreement with his employer, to a 20-day suspension. Prior to this incident, Respondent had not been disciplined by the Petitioner. After this incident and not associated therewith, on October 15, 1997, the Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgment for DUI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Larry J. Gardner; or in the alternative Suspending the certification of Larry J. Gardner for 30 days, together with any appropriate terms and conditions, if a determination is made that he committed the offense of resisting arrest without violence. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security officer license (Number D93-17516) issued by the Department. McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "McRoberts") is an agency that offers security services. For approximately one year and eight months (and at all times material to the instant case), Respondent was employed as a security officer by McRoberts. He was assigned to service the Antillean Marine Shipping (hereinafter referred to as "Antillean") account. His supervisor was David Bowling. Antillean demanded that McRoberts supply security guards who spoke both English and Spanish. Respondent met this requirement, although he was not fluent in English. Respondent and all other McRoberts security officers assigned to the Antillean account were given written post orders which they were expected to obey. Respondent received his written post orders prior to April 22, 1995. These post orders included the following: Security officers are not permitted to sit in their personal vehicles during their shift. There will be NO SLEEPING on duty. Personnel found sleeping will be fired on the spot. Roving officer must make key rounds every hour. Please note: If the officer does not make rounds, he will not get paid for that time. (Important) The only thing we asked of you is to do the job you were hired for and the client will be satisfied and there will be no problems. NO SLEEPING ON POST !! Excuses will not be accepted. POST Number 1: Security officer will be responsible for front gate. All vehicles entering terminal after hours (unless management personnel) will be stopped to identify occupants. Visitors to vessels (unless visiting captain or officers) will be required to remain at front gate until crewman is located. Rover (Post Number 2) will locate crewman. On April 22, 1995, while on duty at Antillean (at Post Number 1), Respondent was sitting in his personal vehicle in violation of the post orders. Bowling observed Respondent in the vehicle and issued him a Notice of Failing Performance (which is essentially a written reprimand) for having committed this violation. The notice contained the following "comments" made by Bowling: S/O was on property in his car (laying down in the back seat). He told me that he has been doing this for a year. 1/ I told him that Morales 2/ does not allow it. He agreed w/me that he knows better. On May 26, 1995, Bowling again observed Respondent in Respondent's personal vehicle while Respondent was on duty at Antillean (at Post Number 1). This time Respondent had his eyes closed and was apparently asleep. Accordingly, Bowling issued Respondent another Notice of Failing Performance, which contained the following "comments" made by Bowling: I arrived at 0515. C. Figueroa was inside his car asleep at Post 1. In accordance with McRoberts' written policy, Respondent was docked four hours pay for having been asleep while on duty. Respondent was angry at Bowling for having issued him the Notice of Failing Performance that had resulted in this loss of pay. On June 9, 1995, when Bowling approached Respondent and asked him to sign a log sheet, Respondent vented his anger by yelling at Bowling. Respondent accused Bowling of taking food out of the mouths of Respondent's children. Respondent then threatened Bowling by telling Bowling that he would see Bowling "on the streets" and that Bowling was not "going to live much longer." 3/ While making these threats, Respondent came close to, but did not touch, Bowling. He had no intention of actually harming Bowling, but Bowling nonetheless reasonably feared for his safety. Another supervisor was called to the scene and escorted Respondent away. Bowling prepared and submitted a written report describing the incident. Respondent's employment with McRoberts was subsequently terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the three violations of subsection (1)(f) of Section 493.6118, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by suspending his license for a period of two months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1996.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Ronald W. Cone. Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License No. D89-03534 which expired on February 21, 1993. Subsequently, Respondent applied for renewal of the Class "D" Security Officer License in August, 1993. The renewal was granted by Petitioner. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, Respondent has, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, held a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. From February 21, 1993, to April 12, 1993, Respondent performed his duties as an armed security officer at the Independent Life Insurance Building in Jacksonville, Florida. The building was open to the public at the time. On April 9, 1993, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Respondent arrived for work at his guard station in the center of the 80 foot vaulted ceiling lobby to the building. The acoustics of the lobby are such that a dime can be heard hitting the floor all the way across the area on a quiet day when there are few people in the facility, as was the case on April 9, 1993, at about 4:00 p.m. when Respondent decided to delve into his brown bag lunch. Leaving his subordinate, an unarmed security guard named William C. Piersky, on duty at the guard station, Respondent went to a restaurant area located in the lobby of the building approximately 125 feet from the guard station to eat his late lunch. The restaurant, operated by Morrison's Cafeteria, Inc., was closed at the time. The area was separated from the rest of the lobby by small partitions that stood three to four feet tall. Piersky was unable to see Respondent. A short time later, Piersky heard a loud report which he presumed was the discharge of a firearm. Although Piersky concluded the discharge he heard came from a firearm, his testimony is not credited on this point in view of his admitted unfamiliarity with bullets containing "birdshot", his admitted lack of involvement with firearms in previous security employment, and his present employment in the position previously held by Respondent. Respondent's testimony at final hearing was candid, worthy of belief and establishes that what Piersky really heard was not a firearm discharge. Rather, the loud report resulted from Respondent's action of blowing up and popping his paper lunch bag in an area with extreme acoustical sensitivity. Respondent admits that he was having fun at Piersky's expense and that when he returned to the guard station in the center of the lobby he remarked "can't believe I missed that bird." The reference to a bird was the sparrow that had found its way into the building. The bird had eluded capture by building maintenance personnel. Respondent's candid testimony establishes that he did not discharge his service revolver at the bird and that he did not load the weapon with a form of nonstandard ammunition known as birdshot on the day in question. In furtherance of his claim that a firearm had discharged, Piersky did an incident report on the matter. Three days later Respondent was fired. Piersky, previously an unarmed contract guard, now works as an armed security guard supervisor directly for Independent Life Insurance Company, as did Respondent prior to his termination. During the period of February 14, 1993 through April 12, 1993, Respondent performed duties as a security officer and armed security officer while his Class "D" license was expired. Upon receipt of a renewal notice and during his employment with Independent Life, Respondent's practice was to give that notice to the building manager's secretary to handle administratively. This had been a normal practice for licensed security guards during Respondent's employment with Independent Life. He followed this practice in the present instance and thought at the time that his license was renewed. Following his termination of employment and discovery of his license expiration, Respondent proceeded to obtain license renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of allegations contained in Counts III, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order find Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine of $100 for each violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-4981 The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-5. Accepted, though not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Rejected, relevance. Adopted, though not verbatim. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings In Respondent's posthearing submission, he basically pleads guilty to the allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and not guilty to the remaining counts. Accordingly, further comment is not required. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Attorney at Law Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald W. Cone Post Office Box 447 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 323999-0250
Findings Of Fact Robert W. Barnard was initially issued a Class "D" security guard license on May 12, 1986, by the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing. At the time of licensure the agency was aware that Barnard had been found guilty of the felony of aggravated assault by a jury verdict, but that adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for five years, on September 3, 1974. (Exhibit #1, Respondent's Memorandum in Response to Petition. Effective October 1, 1986, the legislature added the following to Chapter 493, F.S., relating to licensing for investigative and patrol services: 493.319 Grounds for disciplinary action.-- * * * (1) The following constitutes grounds for which disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken: * * * (p) The department shall deny an applicant or revoke a license when the person or licensee has been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended, unless and until civil rights have been restored and a period of 10 years has expired: * * * Chapter 86-193, Laws of Fla. This provision was renumbered and was amended in 1987, as follows: (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(c) and subsection (2), the department shall deny an application or revoke a license when the person or licensee has been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended, unless and until civil rights have been restored and a period of 10 years has expired. A conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere shall create a presumption of guilt to the underlying criminal charges, and the department shall allow the person being disciplined to present any evidence relevant to the underlying charges and the circumstances surrounding his plea. Chapter 87-274, Laws of Fla. The agency issued a renewal certificate to Robert Barnard on March 17, 1988. (Exhibit #1, Respondent's Memorandum in Response to Petition) On September 19, 1989, the Department of State, Division of Licensing issued its Administrative Complaint, Case #89-01377, alleging that Robert W. Barnard's guard license should be revoked, based on his violation of Section 493.319(3), F.S.. Count I of the complaint alleges, "On September 3, 1974, Respondent was found guilty of one felony count of aggravated assault in Orange County, Florida." No other convictions or violations were alleged. Through counsel, Robert Barnard requested a formal hearing in response to the complaint. On November 1, 1989, Department of State Assistant General Counsel, Henri C. Cawthon, wrote to Richard Wallsh, Barnard's attorney, stating that it did not appear that material facts were in dispute and that an informal hearing would be more appropriate. The letter provided, in pertinent part: ... Because the Division will stipulate to the factual allegations in your petition, the only issue is a legal one: does Section 493.319(3), Florida Statutes (1987), require revocation when a licensee had adjudication withheld on a felony over ten years ago. It can also be stipulated that Mr. Barnard was licensed in spite of his criminal record, and that the Division is applying the statute retroactively. * * * (Attachment to Petition for Fees and Costs) On November 3, 1989, Robert Barnard petitioned for an informal hearing based on Mr. Cawthon's letter. On November 30, 1989, Robert Barnard filed his "suggestion of sealing of record", stating that on November 8, 1989, the ninth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Orange County, entered its order sealing the pertinent criminal records pursuant to Section 943.058, F.S. and Fla. R. Criminal Procedure 3.692. (Attachment to Petition for Fees and Costs) Counsel for the agency claims that he had informed Petitioner's counsel that sealing the criminal record would result in dismissal of the administrative complaint, although the agency was under no obligation to inform Petitioner of this option. (Memorandum of Law in Response to Petition) On December 11, 1989, in a letter from Assistant General Counsel, Henri Cawthon, to Richard Wallsh, the agency informed Robert Barnard that, based on the order sealing records, the administrative complaint was being withdrawn. The informal hearing scheduled for December 19, 1989, was cancelled. Robert W. Barnard is a "prevailing small business party", as defined in Section 57.111(3)(c) and (d), F.S. (parties' Stipulation of Facts). The agency was not a "nominal party" as provided in Section 57.111(4)(d), F.S. (parties' Stipulation of Facts) In successfully defending the administrative complaint, Robert Barnard incurred reasonable attorneys fees and costs totalling $1,527.07. (parties' Stipulation of Facts) In successfully pursuing fees and costs, Robert Barnard incurred additional reasonable fees and costs in the amount of $1,281.53, for a total of $2,808.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing pay Robert Barnard's attorney fees and costs in the amount of $2,808.60. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard I. Wallsh, Esquire 2699 Lee Road, Suite 505 Winter Park, FL 32789 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's application for a Class "D" security officer's license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On November 8, 1990, the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, received Petitioner, Marco A. Sanchez' application for a Class "D" security officer's license. The application was signed by Petitioner on October 24, 1990. In Section five of Petitioner's application, Petitioner indicated he had never been convicted of a crime regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or imposition of sentence was suspended. By amended denial letter dated June 11, 1991, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application for licensure would be denied for alleged violation of Section 493.6118(1)(a), to wit, fraud or willful misrepresentation in applying for a license; and Section 493.6118(3), lack of good moral character. On March 1, 1990, in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 89- 20164, Petitioner pled guilty and had adjudication of guilt withheld on the charge of petit theft. The initial charge was strong arm robbery but was reduced at trial. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of six months, however, he successfully performed his community service within two (2) weeks of sentencing and the probationary period was suspended following his completion of the community service.. The guilty plea resulted from an incident in which Petitioner attempted to steal a dress shirt from a local department store. Petitioner became angry when he was unsuccessful in his effort to exchange a shirt that he received as a gift. Petitioner was ultimately able to have the shirt exchanged at a different department store of the same chain. Following the exchange, Petitioner attempted to steal another shirt. Petitioner was observed by the store's security officers who followed him and apprehended him as he left the store. Petitioner and the officers engaged in a scuffle when they detained him. Based on Petitioner's confrontation with the store clerk at the first store, he was motivated to attempt to take the shirt from the second store. On December 9, 1989, Petitioner was originally charged with strong arm robbery on the basis that one of the security officers was injured on the lip. At hearing, Petitioner credibly testified that the security officer in question was not involved in his apprehension in December 1989. Petitioner is remorseful for attempting to steal the shirt from the department store in December 1989. During November 1988, in Miami, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with the possession of cocaine and marijuana. The charges were nolle prossed. Petitioner credibly testified that the drugs in question belonged to a female companion in his car at the time of his arrest and he was unaware that she had any contraband on her person. Petitioner completed his application for a Class "D" security officer and was aware of his requirement to truthfully respond to the inquiry in Section Five of the application. Petitioner failed to credibly explain his omission of the March 1, 1990 disposition of the charges filed against him in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 89-20164.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" security officer. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1991, 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 29th day of August, 1991.
