Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On August 28, 1987, Respondent was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 19-87-002-04. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer with the City of Miami Police Department. Respondent was born in Marianna, Florida, but was reared in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent has lived and worked in the Liberty City and Overtown areas of Miami for many years. Prior to becoming employed with the City of Miami Police Department, Respondent was graduated from Florida A & M University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Additionally, he had completed police academy training and had served as a reservist in the U.S. Navy. According to Respondent, he is a natural leader and has acquired discipline from his military experiences. During the early morning hour of September 18, 1988, Respondent was on duty in a marked police vehicle patrolling an area of Miami in the vicinity of 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard. Respondent was armed, dressed in his police uniform, and accompanied by another uniformed officer, Efrain Grillo. At approximately 12:00 a.m. on that date, Respondent observed a white female standing in the curb area along Biscayne Boulevard. The Respondent later learned that the female's name was Linda MacArthur. At that time, however, he recognized her from a prior encounter he had had with her in the Overtown area approximately a month before. At that time, Respondent believed Ms. MacArthur to be a prostitute. Officer Grillo pulled the police car over to the curb where Ms. MacArthur was standing. Respondent directed her to enter the back seat of the vehicle and she complied. Prior to being directed to enter the vehicle, Ms. MacArthur was not placed under arrest, was not advised that she was being transported for questioning, and had not committed a criminal offense in the officers' presence. Neither Respondent nor Officer Grillo notified police dispatch that they were transporting a female passenger. Such notification is required by police policy. After Ms. MacArthur entered the police vehicle, the Respondent and Officer Grillo took her to a dead end street located at approximately 23rd Street and 2nd Avenue. Once there, the three individuals exited the police car and walked over to a dumpster that blocked the end of the paved street. After exiting the vehicle, Respondent obtained Ms. MacArthur's purse and went through it. Among the items enclosed in the purse were condoms and a small bottle of perfume. Officer Grillo took the perfume bottle and emptied it over Ms. MacArthur's upper torso. Next, Respondent asked Ms. MacArthur how she used the condoms. While the police officers observed, Ms. MacArthur opened the condom package, placed the condom in her mouth and began a sucking action. After a few seconds, she threw the condom down on the ground. While Officer Grillo spoke with Ms. MacArthur, the Respondent went to the police car and retrieved his flashlight. Officer Grillo asked Ms. MacArthur if she had underwear on. When she replied she did not, Respondent asked her if they (the officers) could see. Ms. MacArthur pulled her pants down to reveal her naked backside. When he returned from the car with the light, Respondent attempted to illuminate Ms. MacArthur's lower body but was unable to do so since the batteries in the flashlight failed. Officer Grillo then went to the police car and obtained a surgical glove which he placed on his hand. With Respondent present, Officer Grillo placed his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas. Respondent observed Officer Grillo rub his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas and saw her fidget at one point. Officer Grillo inserted his finger into Ms. MacArthur's vagina and rectum without her consent. The touching that is described in paragraph 10 was not done to effect a cavity search of someone under arrest nor was it performed for a bona fide medical purpose. Following the acts described above, the Respondent and Officer Grillo placed the Respondent into the police car and transported her back to the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. MacArthur then located an undercover police officer and disclosed the activities which had taken place. As part of the follow up investigation performed by the police, the perfume bottle and condom were retrieved from the site. Also in connection with the investigation of the allegation, an investigator went to the location of Respondent's day job and asked him to return to the police station for questioning. Respondent drove himself to the sexual battery office and spoke with Detective Mahon and Sgt. Sparrow. Prior to giving a statement, Respondent was advised of his rights by the officers. Respondent executed a written Miranda warning form. Respondent then gave an account of the activities which had occurred with Ms. MacArthur and Officer Grillo. This statement was given at approximately 3:21 p.m., September 18, 1988. Respondent gave a second statement to an assistant state attorney and Detective Mahon at approximately 5:41 p.m., September 18, 1988. That statement was made under oath and mirrored the one previously given by him. While Respondent did not see penetration of Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas by Officer Grillo's hand, it is undisputed that he observed the gloved hand being placed in those specific areas as described above. The police did not coerce Respondent into making the statements given on September 18, 1988. Respondent was not placed under arrest, was not charged with a criminal offense, and has not been prosecuted for any alleged wrongdoing. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is likely to be prosecuted for any alleged criminal act. In contrast, Officer Grillo was charged with criminal offenses related to the incident with Ms. MacArthur. Subsequent to the incident described above, Respondent resigned his employment with the City of Miami Police Department. Prior to that action, he had received several commendations for specific acts of excellent service, and had obtained satisfactory or very good performance evaluations for his work as a police officer. All acts which gave rise to the allegations of this case occurred during Respondent's rookie year as a police officer. Prior to being asked to return to the police station to give a statement regarding the allegations of this case, Respondent had not disclosed the acts perpetrated by Officer Grillo to another police officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0919 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are accepted; the balance is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the Respondent and his partner intimidated the victim, Linda MacArthur and that she was fearful of being arrested. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The victim complied with Respondent's directive to enter the police vehicle. Paragraphs 8 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Respondent asked the victim as to how she normally used the condom; it is not accepted that he made her suck it. See finding of fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent did, however, make the request described at a later time (prior to releasing the victim). The second sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The balance of that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 22 is accepted; the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's account (that he did not touch the victim) is accepted. If the flashlight was pressed against the victim, the inference that Officer Grillo did that also is more credible. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See, however, finding of fact paragraphs 10 and 17. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 32 are accepted. Paragraphs 33 through 36 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. Respondent submitted a written closing argument. Copies to: Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rashad El-Amin Attorney at Law 4300 S.W. 92 Davie, Florida 33328
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Rules 11B- 27.0011(4)(a), 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Osborne was employed as a police officer with the Winter Haven Police Department. Approximately 15 times during 2001, Osborne picked up a prostitute, Sandra Cornell (Cornell), in his police vehicle and had sex with her while he was in his police uniform. The first time Osborne picked up Cornell, he was in his police car parked near a church in Winter Haven, Florida. Cornell was walking down the street, and Osborne called her over to the police car and asked her what she was doing that night. She told him that she was trying to make some money, and he told her to get in the back seat of the car. She got in the vehicle, and he drove to a spot near Publix and a nursing home. He told her, "Nobody will bother a police car." They got out of the car, and she performed oral sex on him. Osborne paid her $10 and gave her some cigarettes. The second time that she had sex with Osborne, he gave her $5. However, he discontinued paying Cornell for her services after their second encounter. Cornell continued to have sex with Osborne without payment, believing that he would arrest her if she did not continue to have sex with him. Another time Osborne picked Cornell up in the parking lot of the Regency Inn and told her to get in the back of the police car and lie down. She did as she was told. Osborne drove them to a water tower near the Regency Inn, where they had sex. Another time Osborne, while in his police uniform, picked Cornell up in the early morning hours and took her to Silver Lake in his police car. Osborne was on duty at the time. While the couple was having sex, Osborne received a police call. He left Cornell at Silver Lake so that he could respond to the call, and she had to walk back to town. The Winter Haven Police Department conducted an Internal Affairs investigation of Osborne's activities with Cornell. On July 19, 2002, Osborne was interviewed under oath by Lieutenant Katy Goddard and Lieutenant Jim Allen. During the interview, Osborne was asked the following questions and gave the following answers under oath: Q. Have you ever rode uh Sandy Cornell in your patrol vehicle . . . A. No, I have not. Q. . . . let me finish the question--in an unofficial business? A. No. * * * Q. Have you ever had sex with Sandy Cornell on duty? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you ever had sex with Sandy Cornell off duty? A. No, I have not. On December 6, 2002, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Osborne, alleging that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission had issued Osborne an auxiliary law enforcement certificate and a law enforcement certificate on December 28, 1994. Osborne filed an elections of rights form on January 8, 2003, requesting an administrative hearing and disputing only the factual allegations dealing with having sexual relations with Cornell and soliciting another prostitute for sex. Osborne has not contested that he is a certified auxiliary law enforcement officer and a certified law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Jimmy Osborne did not violate Subsection 943.1395(6); finding that Jimmy Osborne did violate Subsection 943.13(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), (b), and (c), Florida Administrative Code; and revoking his certification as an auxiliary law enforcement officer and a law enforcement officer, pursuant to Subsection 943.1395(7). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jimmy Osborne 902 9th Street, Northeast Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether there is just cause for the City of Cape Coral's decision to terminate the employment of Hector Calderon, a police officer with the City of Cape Coral Police Department.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The City of Cape Coral (the "City") employed Hector Calderon as a police officer in the operations division of the Cape Coral Police Department (the "Department") from January 11, 1997 through January 11, 2002, the effective date of his termination. Officer Calderon was employed as a patrol officer, and his main duties were traffic enforcement during the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. On October 29, 2001, Sgt. Keith Perrin of the Department received a telephone complaint concerning Officer Calderon from a woman named Cheryl Sugar. Ms. Sugar told Sgt. Perrin that Officer Calderon had lived with her over the past several months. She offered information about narcotics usage and deviant sexual behavior by Officer Calderon, both on and off duty. She specifically alleged that Officer Calderon had been taking cocaine. Ms. Sugar also told Sgt. Perrin that Officer Calderon had been seeing a woman named Nicole Beougher, whom he had met working at a Circle K store when he stopped there during his work shift. Ms. Sugar alleged that Officer Calderon had been taking Ms. Beougher on "ride-alongs" in his police car. Ms. Sugar was angry at Officer Calderon because she had only recently discovered that he had also been dating Ms. Beougher. She and Ms. Beougher had spoken to each other, and realized that Officer Calderon had been deceiving both of them. Sgt. Perrin made a report to Lt. Michael Maher, the Department's head of internal affairs. Lt. Maher contacted Ms. Sugar by telephone on the morning of October 30, 2001. Ms. Sugar reiterated her allegations and agreed to come in later that afternoon to give a sworn statement and submit to a polygraph examination. However, she telephoned Lt. Maher at 3 p.m. and stated that she had placed herself in an "awkward position" and could not give a statement after all. From that point forward, Ms. Sugar declined to cooperate with the Department, despite frequent attempts by Lt. Maher to secure her testimony. On or about November 3, 2001, officers from the Department responded to a domestic dispute call involving Officer Calderon and Ms. Sugar. The officers on the scene noted that Officer Calderon acted unusually. He was upset, shaken, and verbally abusive. He refused to leave the scene until Lt. Maher gave him a direct order to leave or go to jail. This incident, coupled with Ms. Sugar's earlier complaint, led Lt. Maher to place Officer Calderon on administrative leave and send him for a "fitness for duty" psychological evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by a psychologist on November 8, 2001. The psychologist concluded that Officer Calderon was not capable of returning to duty. Officer Calderon was placed on administrative desk duty and his patrol vehicle was taken from him. Officer Calderon's patrol vehicle was assigned to another officer, Robert Slager. Following routine procedure, Officer Slager inventoried the vehicle to assure that Officer Calderon's personal property was accounted for and returned to him. While conducting the inventory, Officer Slager discovered sixteen driver's licenses in the vehicle. The licenses were in a cup holder, in plain sight. Upon investigation, Lt. Maher determined that the driver's licenses had been confiscated by Officer Calderon during traffic stops over a four-year period. Department procedure called for confiscated licenses to be turned in to the records division along with the citation, but Officer Calderon simply kept them in his vehicle. Lt. Maher questioned Officer Calderon as to why he kept the licenses. Officer Calderon's only explanation was that they were his "personal collection." Several officers testified that they had heard of the practice of keeping confiscated driver’s licenses as trophies, but all denied that they did it themselves. They could not or would not name any other officer who indulged in the practice. Officer Calderon kept the licenses in plain sight, and his vehicle was inspected by his superiors on a regular basis, yet no disciplinary action was taken against him concerning the confiscated licenses until this investigation developed. Despite Ms. Sugar's failure to cooperate, Lt. Maher continued investigating her allegations. Ms. Sugar had provided the name of Nicole Beougher, and Lt. Maher contacted Ms. Beougher, who provided a sworn statement and testified at the hearing. In October or November 2000, Ms. Beougher was working nights in a Circle K store in Officer Calderon’s patrol zone. She was 18 years old. Officer Calderon came in, and they began talking. He started coming in frequently to talk to her. He gave her his business card, adding a handwritten note with the code for his voice mailbox at work. During their conversations, Ms. Beougher mentioned that she had never ridden in a police car, and Officer Calderon offered to take her on a "ride-along." At the time, the Department had a "ride-along" program as part of its community outreach. The program encouraged citizens to ride with patrol officers as they conducted their daily course of duties. Interested persons were required to fill out a release of liability form and permit the Department to run a criminal background check. By Department policy, each citizen was limited to one ride-along every six months. Ms. Beougher completed the form and went on a ride- along with Officer Calderon on Christmas Eve 2000. He picked her up at her mother’s house at 6 p.m. and drove to the police station for roll call. Then Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher went out on the road on his patrol duties. They discussed personal matters, such as whether Ms. Beougher had a boyfriend. At around midnight, they drove to a secluded area on the north end of Cape Coral. Officer Calderon stopped the car. They both got out and walked to the rear of the car. Officer Calderon began kissing Ms. Beougher. Nothing further of a sexual nature occurred. Officer Calderon dropped Ms. Beougher off at her mother's house at approximately 5:30 a.m. on Christmas Day. In January 2001, Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher began seeing each other regularly. On May 6, 2001, Officer Calderon moved in with Ms. Beougher. While they lived together, Officer Calderon, on duty, would stop by their apartment five or six times per shift, sometimes for as long as 45 minutes. On one or two of these occasions, they engaged in oral sex. While they lived together, Ms. Beougher rode along with Officer Calderon on his work shift on 15 to 20 different occasions. Ms. Beouger never filled out another release of liability form, and the number of ride-alongs was clearly in violation the Department's policy. However, the evidence at hearing established that the Department's enforcement of its policy was lax. Officer Calderon's shift sergeant saw Ms. Beougher with him on more than one occasion and made no inquiry. On one or two of these unauthorized ride-alongs, they drove to a secluded area of northern Cape Coral, and Ms. Beougher performed oral sex on Officer Calderon. One evening while they were living together, Officer Calderon brought home a small amount of cocaine and offered to use it with Ms. Beougher. She was afraid to use it, fearing that Officer Calderon was trying to set her up for an arrest. Ms. Beougher said she would use it if he did first. Officer Calderon snorted the cocaine through a rolled dollar bill. Ms. Beougher then joined him. From that point forward, Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher used cocaine frequently on weekends when Officer Calderon was not working. Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher frequently spent weekends at a Motel 6 in North Fort Myers. They did this to get away from their roommate and to be closer to the clubs downtown. They would drink heavily at the clubs, to the point where Ms. Beougher could not remember much of what occurred. They would bring other people, male and female, back to the motel and have sex with them. They also used cocaine while at the motel. Officer Calderon sometimes worked details at a bar called the Hired Hand Saloon, a place he also frequented when off duty. A prior acquaintance named Roger Montgomery worked there as a bouncer. Ms. Beougher testified that Mr. Montgomery was the source of Officer Calderon's cocaine. At the hearing, Mr. Montgomery confirmed the details of Ms. Beougher's testimony. At the Hired Hand, Mr. Montgomery would give Officer Calderon "bumps" of cocaine, i.e., small amounts sufficient for him and Ms. Beougher to get high. On at least two occasions, Mr. Montgomery sold $50 worth of cocaine to Officer Calderon. Mr. Montgomery never gave or sold cocaine to Officer Calderon while he was on duty. Mr. Montgomery never saw Officer Calderon appear to be under the influence of alcohol or any other drug while he was on duty. Mr. Montgomery never actually witnessed Officer Calderon taking cocaine, though he was certain that he saw him high on cocaine. Ms. Beougher testified that she and Officer Calderon used cocaine while at the Hired Hand. On one occasion when Officer Calderon was off duty at the Hired Hand, he asked Mr. Montgomery for cocaine. Mr. Montgomery did not have the cocaine on his person, but did have some in the ashtray of his truck. He gave Officer Calderon the keys to his truck, and Officer Calderon went out to the truck. When Mr. Montgomery later went out to his truck, the cocaine was gone. Officer Calderon invited Mr. Montgomery to the Motel 6 to use cocaine and have sex with Ms. Beougher and him. Mr. Montgomery wanted to go, but couldn't. Mr. Montgomery testified that Ms. Beougher, under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, performed oral sex on both him and Officer Calderon at the Hired Hand. Ms. Beougher could not recall this incident, but did not deny that it might have happened while she was under the influence. One evening at the Hired Hand, Officer Calderon gave Mr. Montgomery a bag of marijuana. Officer Calderon told him that he had confiscated the marijuana from a group of teenagers while on duty. Officer Calderon had earlier shown the marijuana to Ms. Beougher and told her the same story. On one occasion, Officer Calderon asked Mr. Montgomery to get him the drug Ecstasy. Mr. Montgomery made the attempt but was unable to get it because his seller's supplier had been arrested. Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher took the drug Oxycontin on several occasions. Officer Calderon procured the drug from a person unknown to Ms. Beougher. Officer Calderon had no car other than his patrol vehicle, which he was authorized to take home. Ms. Beougher testified that while off duty, Officer Calderon drove the patrol vehicle under the influence of alcohol on several occasions. He also allowed Ms. Beougher to drive the police vehicle. Sometime in August 2001, Officer Calderon moved out of Ms. Beougher's apartment. He told Ms. Beougher he was moving because there had been a drug bust in the apartment next door, and he was concerned that the Department would somehow associate him with it. Officer Calderon's move also coincided with his learning that Ms. Beougher was pregnant with twins. Ms. Beougher was certain that Officer Calderon was the father. Officer Calderon did not deny it, but wanted to make certain prior to undertaking support obligations. The results of a DNA test were pending at the time of the hearing. Ms. Beougher testified that her drug use ceased when she learned she was pregnant, and that she never saw Officer Calderon take illegal drugs after she stopped taking them. During the investigation, Lt. Maher discovered that Officer Calderon failed to notify the Department of several address changes, in violation of General Order D-1, Section III.18. Officer Calderon admitted to the sexual allegations that occurred at the Hired Hand and the Motel 6. He denied having sex with Ms. Beougher in his patrol car, and denied that he had ever used any illegal drugs. Officer Calderon alleged that Ms. Sugar and Ms. Beougher were bitter about his seeing them both at the same time, and thus concocted a false tale of his drug usage. He contended that Mr. Montgomery, a known drug dealer, had been intimidated through fear of arrest into testifying, and that Mr. Montgomery was sexually involved with Ms. Beougher and thus part of the conspiracy. Officer Calderon's contentions about the opposing witnesses cannot be credited. Neither Ms. Beougher nor Mr. Montgomery knew the other's last name, and both credibly testified that their only involvement with each other was through Officer Calderon at the Hired Hand. Ms. Beougher admitted to being angry at Officer Calderon, but credibly denied that she invented her story of drug usage. Adding to her credibility was that she freely implicated herself in the illegal activities that occurred, rather than portraying herself as an innocent bystander. Mr. Montgomery admitted that his motive for testifying was fear of prosecution for his drug dealings. He was reluctant to testify against Officer Calderon. He did not want to get Officer Calderon in trouble. His testimony was credible and corroborated that of Ms. Beougher as to the particulars of occurrences at the Hired Hand. Officer Calderon had a prior disciplinary history, which Chief Gibbs testified played a role in his decision to terminate Officer Calderon. In 1999, Officer Calderon was given a eight-hour suspension without pay for failing to report the discharge of his service revolver. He and his live-in girlfriend at the time, Allison Gimello, were involved in a domestic disturbance. When the police arrived, they discovered bullet holes in a closet door. Ms. Gimello told police that Officer Calderon had fired his police weapon after threatening to kill her. She later changed her story, saying that she had accidentally fired the gun. Because of this ambiguity, Officer Calderon was disciplined only for not reporting the discharge of his weapon. He did not file a grievance or appeal his suspension. Also in 1999, Officer Calderon was disciplined for showing a photograph of himself, naked with an erection, to female employees of the Department. Without grievance or appeal, Officer Calderon received a 24-hour suspension without pay. Upon completion of the internal affairs investigation in the instant case, Officer Calderon was charged with the following: failure to notify the Department of an address change; loafing while on duty; use of a controlled substance while off duty; purchase and possession of a controlled substance while on and off duty; intentional violation of state law; conduct unbecoming a public employee; using the prestige of his official position or the Department's time, facilities, equipment or supplies for private gain; improper performance of his duties; engaging in sex while on duty and in a City of Cape Coral police vehicle; malfeasance or misfeasance in office; perpetration of an act or conduct which causes substantial doubt concerning an officer's honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state, irrespective of whether such act or conduct constitutes a crime; and violation of the rules of conduct of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("CJSTC") by failing to maintain good moral character and having a pattern of conduct not consistent with state standards. Lt. Maher's internal affairs report, dated December 5, 2001, sustained all of the charges except loafing on duty and use of a controlled substance. Lt. Maher dropped the loafing charge after consulting with Officer Calderon's immediate superiors, who did not see a problem with his frequent visits to the Circle K store or to the apartment he later shared with Ms. Beougher, provided his productivity was unaffected. It was conceded at the hearing that Officer Calderon was one of the most productive officers in the Department throughout his employment. Lt. Maher dropped the drug usage charge because the only drug test given to Officer Calderon came back negative. At the outset of the investigation, Lt. Maher wanted to test Officer Calderon for drugs but was advised by the City attorney that he lacked reasonable suspicion to order a test. By the time his investigation built reasonable suspicion, Officer Calderon had been placed on administrative duty and was aware that the Department was looking into his activities. Nonetheless, Lt. Maher believed that, without a positive drug test, he could not sustain a charge of drug usage. At the hearing, Officer Calderon challenged the alleged inconsistency between the Department's finding there was insufficient evidence to support that he used drugs, but finding the same evidence sufficient to support that he bought and/or possessed drugs. This argument is rejected. The evidence at hearing established that Officer Calderon both possessed and used drugs. Lt. Maher's decision to drop one of the potential charges does not change the fact that the other charge was proven. Lt. Maher's report was forwarded to Officer Calderon's immediate superiors for a recommendation on corrective action. One of the superiors, Lt. Craig Durham, recommended termination. Officer Calderon's immediate superior, Sgt. John Dickman, recommended a 30-day suspension without pay or benefits. These recommendations then went to the division commander, Major B. A. Murphy, who recommended termination and forwarded the file to Chief Gibbs for his review on December 12, 2001. Officer Calderon elected to have the recommended discipline reviewed by a Department Disciplinary Review Board ("DDRB"). The DDRB was composed of five Department employees: two selected by Officer Calderon, two selected by the Department's administrators, and a fifth member selected by the other four. Lt. Maher presented the case for the Department. Officer Calderon presented his case in rebuttal. The DDRB then deliberated and rendered a decision. On December 19, 2001, the DDRB unanimously recommended termination. On December 21, 2001, Chief Gibbs entered a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action terminating Officer Calderon's employment. Officer Calderon sought and received an appeal of this decision with the City Manager. On January 10, 2002, Interim City Manager Howard Kunik upheld the decision to terminate Officer Calderon's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Burton B. Griffin, was certified as a law enforcement officer by respondent, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), having been issued law enforcement certificate number 56974 on August 3, 1979. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a police officer with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (JSO). This controversy involves charges that respondent (a) unlawfully possessed drug paraphernalia in October 1992, (b) unlawfully possessed a crack pipe in July 1992, and (c) falsified an arrest and booking docket for one Beverly Hay in July 1992. In 1991, respondent was assigned to the Zone 3 Community Problem Response Team (team). The team, which consisted of 6 to 8 officers at any given time, worked the "core city downtown" area, which was the most crime-ridden, dangerous and violent part of the City. As a member of the team, respondent often engaged in the dangerous task of performing undercover narcotics work, which required him to make undercover purchases of drugs from local dealers. Through undercover assignments, he also apprehended local prostitutes. In order to effectively carry out his responsibilities as an undercover agent, respondent was required to wear disguises, which included such "props" as civilian clothes, a beard, and glasses. In addition, respondent would drive an unmarked car and carry a bottle of liquor and crack pipes. The pipes were placed in the ashtray of the car and in his shirt pocket to convince the drug dealer that respondent was a "street person" and not an undercover law enforcement officer. When not being used, the props were kept in a bag in the trunk of the vehicle. On July 13, 1992, respondent and his partner were flagged down by a female prostitute named Beverly Hay on a downtown street. After solicting respondent, Hay was told she would be charged with prostitution, a misdemeanor. She was also in possession of what appeared to be a crack pipe, another misdemeanor. Hay had a previous record of prostitution arrests, and she did not want to be incarcerated for a long period of time. In return for not being arrested, she agreed to act as a confidential informant and make purchases of drugs from various crack houses in the neighborhood. With this information, JSO could then obtain search warrants for each of the illicit houses. After obtaining the approval of his supervisor not to arrest Hay, respondent released Hay but gave her his pager number and instructions to call him as soon as she was ready to make a buy. Respondent kept the crack pipe in his vehicle as leverage to insure that Hay would fulfill her side of the agreement. In other words, if she did not fulfill her part of the agreement, the pipe would then be used as evidence to arrest her for possession of drug paraphanalia at a later date. Before she was released, Hay was told that this would happen. This type of arrangement was not unusual for officers working in undercover narcotics. As of July 16, 1992, Hay had still not provided the agreed upon assistance. That evening, respondent observed Hay in the 700 block of West Monroe Street. After apprehending her, respondent learned that Hay did not intend to provide any assistance. Accordingly, he prepared an arrest and booking report in which he stated that Hay was being arrested for possession of the crack pipe which he had found on her three days earlier. In the "narrative" portion of the report, however, respondent stated that Hay had the pipe in her possession on July 16, rather than the correct day of July 13. The report and crack pipe were filed with the JSO, and Hay served approximately 16 days in jail before being released. Respondent filled out the report in this manner because both he and his partner were unsure how to fill out a "deferred arrest" for a misdemeanor offense. Indeed, while most witnesses in this case were generally familiar with the procedure for a felony deferred arrest, no one had ever made a deferred arrest for a misdemeanor. The report would have been accurate had respondent simply stated that Hay was arrested with the pipe on July 13, released that day on the condition that she would provide information, and after failing to perform under her agreement, she was again arrested on July 16 for the original offense. Respondent candidly acknowledged that in hindsight he was wrong and had used poor judgment in filling out Hay's arrest report in the manner that he did. Even so, there was no intent on his part to intentionally violate any JSO policy, Commission rule or state law. More specifically, he did not intend to falsify an official record as charged in the administrative complaint. Rather, the report was incorrectly prepared due to respondent's lack of knowledge on how to make a deferred misdemeanor arrest. On October 27, 1992, the JSO internal affairs section searched all team vehicles. While searching respondent's vehicle, the section found two crack pipes (and other props) that were used by respondent during his undercover work. Even if the pipes were used as props, under a JSO general order the pipes should have been returned to the property room at the end of each shift. By failing to turn them in, respondent unintentionally violated the JSO policy. In addition, by not turning in the Hay pipe for three days until she was arrested, respondent unintentionally violated the same policy. Respondent had found the two pipes used as props laying on a street during one of his many sweeps of known drug areas. Since they were necessary props for his undercover work, he kept them in a bag with his other props. Although the JSO had an informal policy calling for paraphanalia to be checked out of the property room before each undercover assignment, respondent was unaware of this requirement, and he knew of no other officer who had ever done the same. In addition, respondent believed the items had no intrinsic value, and under another JSO general order, unclaimed property having no intrinsic value did not have to be turned into, or checked out of, the property room. At the same time respondent was using the pipes as props, it was common knowledge among JSO officers that another JSO strike force, with its supervisor's approval, was using similar props without turning them into the property room each day. Therefore, it is found that respondent could have reasonably believed he was not violating any general order by keeping his props in a bag in the trunk of his vehicle. In any event, there is no suggestion, or even a hint, that the three pipes were used for any purpose other than official police business. For violating a general order pertaining to "Competency and the Handling of Evidence," respondent received a written reprimand and a limited suspension of sixty working days in 1993. The JSO did not sustain the allegations pertaining to unlawful possession of contraband and falsifying a report. Under Rule 11B-27.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, the employing agency (JSO) is required to forward to the Commission a completed form reflecting only those violations that are sustained. For reasons unknown, in the form filed with the Commission, the JSO internal affairs section incorrectly recited that all allegations had been sustained. Thereafter, the Commission issued an administrative complaint, as amended, seeking disciplinary action against respondent's law enforcement certification for the unsustained allegations. Except for the discipline meted out by JSO in 1993, respondent has had an exemplary career as a law enforcement officer, having served with various departments since 1979. He has continued his employment with the JSO since this incident and is now in a position of special trust as an evidence technician. At hearing, his superiors lauded his integrity, honesty, work ethic and dedication as a police officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, 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 16th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2909 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9-13. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-24. Rejected as recitation of testimony. 25. Rejected as being irrelevant. 26-27. Rejected as being recitation of testimony. 28-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being unnecessary. 33 Rejected as being irrelevant. 34-49. Rejected as being recitation of testimony. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being recitation of testimony. Respondent: Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12-14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. 15-16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13. 17. Rejected as being unnecessary. 18-29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-11. 30-34. Partially accepted in findings of fact 15 and 16. 35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 36-42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Pauline M. Ingraham-Drayton, Esquire 711-B Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2715 T. A. Delegal, III, Esquire 5530 Beach Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 A. Leon Lowry, II, Executive Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael R. Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent misused her position as an Orlando city commissioner by attempting, on May 6, 2006, to influence how the Orlando Police Department (the police department) handled a routine traffic stop involving her son in violation of Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2005).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating compliance with the Code of Ethics applicable to public officers and employees pursuant to Chapter 112, Part III. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been a public officer, a commissioner of the City of Orlando, Florida. Respondent is African-American, as are her two sons Mr. Sean Lynum and Mr. Juan Lynum. At 12:50 a.m., on May 6, 2006, Officer Matthew Ochiuzzo was on duty for the police department patrolling the Paramore neighborhood in Orlando less than a mile from Rock Lake Drive. Officer Ochiuzzo stopped Mr. Juan Lynum because of an inoperable headlight on the vehicle Mr. Lynum was driving.2 Mr. Lynum was driving Respondent’s vehicle home from a fraternity party to Respondent’s residence on Rock Lake Drive in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Lynum shared the residence with Respondent at the time. Neither Respondent nor Mr. Lynum were aware that a headlight on the vehicle was not working. Mr. Lynum telephoned Respondent from his cellular telephone. He informed Respondent that he was being stopped by a Caucasian police officer and expressed his concern that he was the victim of racial profiling. Respondent telephoned then Chief Michael McCoy of the police department at his home and expressed her concern that Mr. Lynum was the victim of racial profiling. Chief McCoy said he would telephone the watch commander on duty and have him deal with the allegation of racial profiling. Respondent then telephoned Officer Roderick Johnson, the police liaison officer assigned to Respondent and an officer first class in the police department. Officer Johnson was engaged in approved off-duty employment to provide security at a local night club. Respondent had time to disclose the general location of the traffic stop and her concern that her son was being racially profiled when she terminated the conversation to take a return telephone call from Chief McCoy. Respondent clearly intended to influence how the police department handled the traffic stop. Respondent did not expressly request intervention in the traffic stop by Chief McCoy or Officer Johnson, but Respondent admits that the purpose of her action was to alert both men to possible racial profiling and to monitor the traffic stop. Respondent used her official position to influence the traffic stop of her son. Both Chief McCoy and Officer Johnson interpreted a telephone call from a city commissioner at approximately 1:00 a.m. in the morning to be a request for action in her official duty as a commissioner.3 The testimony of Chief McCoy is illustrative. Q. Chief, when you received that call from Commissioner Lynum, did you feel you needed to act based on the phone call? A. She’s a Commissioner, yes. Act then, yes. . . . Q. . . . When you answered that she was a Commissioner, what did you mean by that? How did that impact you? A. I used to make the analogy that our Commissioners were our board of directors, because I spent some time in the private sector, and you know, they drive the direction of the city, police department being part of that. So they’re a Commissioner. They’re elected by the people, so, yeah, pay attention to a Commissioner call, as I would a Mayor call. Q. So when you responded to her, were you responding as a friend or as a commissioner? A. As a commissioner. Transcript (TR) at 258-259 and 277. Officer Johnson took it upon himself to call Officer Ochiuzzo, by radio and then by cell phone, during the traffic stop. A call from a city commissioner at approximately 1:00 a.m. motivated Officer Johnson to take action. Officer Ochiuzzo terminated the traffic stop after discussing the matter with Officer Johnson and never spoke to the watch commander on duty during the traffic stop. Officer Ochiuzzo had intended to issue a traffic summons to Mr. Lynum for an inoperable headlight, no registration, and no proof of car insurance. The benefit sought by Respondent in her attempt to influence how the police department handled the traffic stop involving her son was not to prevent her son from receiving a traffic citation. When Mr. Lynum arrived at Respondent’s home after the traffic stop, Respondent discovered that the headlight on her vehicle was inoperable. She telephoned Officer Johnson and asked him to ensure that a traffic citation was forwarded to her. The benefit sought by Respondent was to prevent racial profiling during an ongoing traffic stop by complaining directly to the chief. That was a special benefit or privilege available to Respondent that was not available to a member of the public through the police department’s bias free policing policy. The police department’s bias free policing policy was drafted by legal counsel for the department and was adopted in June 15, 2004. The policy required a member of the public who alleged racial profiling to file a written complaint on a form provided by the department and required the department to investigate the alleged profiling. Respondent was personally familiar with the police department’s bias free policing policy. Respondent was very active in the community, supported the bias free policing policy, and assisted her constituents in processing profiling complaints. Mr. Lynum later filed a complaint of racial profiling pursuant to the bias free policing policy. The police department investigation exonerated Officer Ochiuzzo. Exoneration means the department found Officer Ochiuzzo to be innocent of the charges in the complaint. Exoneration differs from “not sustained” in that the latter means only that the proof is insufficient to support a finding of guilt. When Respondent telephoned Chief McCoy and her liaison officer at approximately 1:00 a.m. on the morning of May 6, 2006, Respondent acted with wrongful intent for the purpose of benefiting another person from an act or omission during an active traffic stop. Respondent acted in a manner that was inconsistent with her public duties. Respondent testified that she called Chief McCoy and Officer Johnson, not in her capacity as commissioner, but as a mother fearful for the safety of her son. Mr. Lynum testified that he sought his mother’s help out concern for his safety at the hands of a Caucasian police officer. The fact-finder finds the testimony of both witnesses to be less than credible and persuasive. Mr. Lynum was on his cell phone when Officer Ochiuzzo approached the vehicle driven by Mr. Lynum. Mr. Lynum virtually ignored Officer Ochiuzzo. The actions of Mr. Lynum in ignoring an investigating officer risked antagonizing the officer and are inconsistent with a person in fear of physical harm. The testimony of Officer Ochiuzzo is illustrative. Q. So what did you do next? A. I exited my patrol vehicle and I approached Mr. Lynum’s car. . . . Q. Okay. What happened next? A. He was on his cell phone when I approached the window and the window was up, and I told him I was conducting a traffic stop and that I needed his license and registration, proof of insurance, and he didn’t respond. Q. So at the initial approach of the vehicle, did you make any other gestures to get the driver’s attention or did you solely use voice commands? A. Voice commands combined with my patrol car lights and chirping of the siren. Q. So when you made these initial voice commands, did the driver respond? A. No. Q. So what did you do next to get his attention? A. . . . I took my flashlight and I tapped the window to get the driver’s attention and instructed him again that I was conducting a traffic stop and I needed a license, registration, proof of insurance. Q. And at that point did Mr. Lynum engage in the traffic stop? A. No. Q. What did he do? A. He ignored it once again. He was on the cell phone. And so I pulled the door open and I told him that I was conducting a traffic stop. I needed his license, registration, proof of insurance. TR at 35-36. Officer Ochiuzzo returned to his patrol vehicle and began writing a uniform traffic citation when he was interrupted by the radio inquiry, which concluded by cell phone, from the liaison officer for Respondent. Officer Johnson informed Officer Ochiuzzo that Officer Johnson was Commissioner Lynum’s liaison officer and that Officer Ochiuzzo had stopped the commissioner’s son. After the conversation, Officer Ochiuzzo terminated the traffic stop. When Officer Ochiuzzo pointed patrol vehicle lights into the rearview mirror of the vehicle of Mr. Lynum, shined a flashlight beam into the vehicle, and kept his free hand on top of his holstered pistol, it was not a threat to Mr. Lynum. It was standard procedure for traffic stops at that hour. When Officer Ochiuzzo was yelling at Mr. Lynum, it was because Mr. Lynum had ignored the officer’s earlier attempts to redirect Mr. Lynum from the cell phone conversation and had failed to lower the window so the officer would not have been required to yell to be heard. Mr. Lynum is an attorney who is familiar with police procedures during traffic stops through instructions from his father who was a law enforcement officer from 1969 through 1987 and ended his career as the chief of the Wildwood Police Department in Wildwood, Florida. Sean Lynum, Mr. Lynum’s brother, is a former officer in the same police department as Officer Ochiuzzo. Respondent is very active in the community and familiar with police procedure. A common safety precaution for a person who suspects he or she is a victim of racial profiling during a traffic stop is to ensure the site of the stop is well lighted and that the person is in contact by cell phone with a person who can be a witness. Mr. Lynum followed both precautions. He stopped in a well-lit area, and he was on his cell phone. Complaints of racial profiling in the area had declined from 23 the year before Chief McCoy became the chief of the department to a consistent annual range of six to eight. Racial profiling was not an issue in the area until after Mr. Lynum made his complaint. The testimony of Chief McCoy is illustrative. This, after the fact, became quite a community event or issue, which sparked a lot of accusations of racial profiling. Our policy had been in effect as long as it’s been in effect. The year before I was Chief, there was like 23 total racial profiling complaints made. The year I became Chief that dropped to like six or eight and that was-–that number was pretty consistent. Even after we had this community event issue, they still never got over 10, total. The key is that if you have a complaint, you need to follow up on it. If people feel like they were stopped simply because they were-–of their race, then you need to do the form and do it right and the officers know that-–or knew that. Q. So, really, it did not become a community issue until after Commissioner Lynum’s son was stopped, racial profiling? A. That would definitely be my perspective . . . . it was not an issue. TR at 278-279.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order and public report finding that Respondent violated Subsection 112.313(6) and publicly censuring and reprimanding Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based on all the evidence, the following facts are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Glenn C. Mingledorff, was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-25390 on June 13, 1980. When the events herein occurred, Mingledorff was employed as a uniformed highway patrolman with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). He resigned from the FHP effective October 26, 1984 and is no longer in the law enforcement profession. Shortly after midnight on February 5, 1983, respondent was on duty in Palm Beach County. When the following events occurred he was transporting two DWI arrestees to a local Palm Beach County jail. While driving north on I-95, he observed a vehicle with three occupants swerve into the lane in front of him. After tailing the vehicle a short distance, and noticing that it was "swerving" on occasion, Mingledorff stopped the vehicle. The driver was Nancy Lynn Pearson, a young female whose speech was slurred, and who smelled of alcohol. She was arrested for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. Mingledorff drove her to a nearby "Batmobile" where she was given a breathalyzer test and asked to perform certain coordination tests. While these tests were being performed, Mingledorff transported the two male arrestees to a local jail. Pearson "blew" a .14 on the breathalyzer machine, which was above the .10 legal limits, and did not "adequately" perform the coordination tests. When Mingledorff returned to the Batmobile approximately an hour and a half later, he handcuffed Pearson with her hands in the front, and placed her in the back seat of his FHP car. He then drove Pearson to the Lake Worth women's facility which was approximately twenty minutes away. During the trip to the facility, Pearson began to cry, and Mingledorff attempted to comfort her by explaining what would happen after she reached the facility. He also told her she was "sweet" and "cute," that she had a "nice shape," and suggested that they might go out sometime in the future for dinner. When the two arrived at the Lake Worth facility, it was between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning. Mingledorff parked the car approximately twenty feet from the entrance to the jail. He then let Pearson out of the car, and after she had walked a few feet, told her he had to frisk her. Although the testimony is conflicting at this point, the more credible and persuasive testimony establishes the following version of events. Mingledorff asked her to extend her handcuffed hands to the front, and then reached down to her ankles and began patting her up the front side of her legs. When he got to her crotch, he "felt around" for a few seconds. Mingledorff then went up to her breasts and squeezed them momentarily. After going to her back side, he squeezed her buttocks during the pat-down process. Pearson did not say anything while Mingledorff frisked her, nor did she say anything when she was taken into the jail. However, about a month later she saw a highway patrolman named Davis at a local speedway, who she mistook for Mingledorff, and complained to him about the frisk. Davis then told local FHP officials. Mingledorff stated that he routinely frisked all arrestees for weapons and drugs, regardless of whether they were male or female. However, through credible testimony it was shown that a "hands-on" search of a female detainee by Mingledorff was inappropriate under the circumstances and contrary to FHP policy. More specifically, it was established that a female detainee is not searched by a male trooper unless the trooper "feels there's a threat to his well-being." Here there was none. Mingledorff should have taken only her purse and any other belongings and left the responsibility of frisking the prisoner to the female attendant at the jail. On the afternoon of May 23, 1984, respondent was on duty as a highway patrolman on I-95 in Palm Beach County. He came up on a vehicle which had spun around in a near-accident and was facing on-coming traffic. The vehicle was operated by Siham Caceres, a then unmarried young female. Caceres was extremely nervous and upset from her near-accident, and was unable to drive her vehicle to the side of the road. Mingledorff directed her to sit in the right front seat of his patrol car until she was calm enough to proceed on her trip. The two sat in his car for approximately ten minutes or so. During that time, Mingledorff, who was in the driver's seat, acknowledged that he briefly reached over and touched Caceres' arm to generate her "circulation." Although he denied any other contact, it is found that Caceres' testimony is more credible and that Mingledorff then reached inside Caceres' sun dress and rubbed her breasts. He also rubbed her crotch area momentarily. Caceres did not encourage or consent to this activity. She did not receive a ticket and was allowed to leave a few minutes later. Caceres did not immediately tell anyone about the incident since she was embarrassed, and she was fearful her brothers would "get" Mingledorff if they learned what had hap- pened. She later told her fiancee, who then reported the matter to FHP officials.
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 issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Rodriguez was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on May 18, 2004, and was issued Correctional Certification No. 240475. On or about February 10, 2009, officers from the Kissimmee Police Department and St. Cloud Police Department participated in an undercover police operation geared to targeting individuals that intend to commit crimes involving narcotics or prostitution. They created a false advertisement for prostitution services on the website, Craigslist. The advertisement consisted of photographs and an undercover phone number to contact for sexual services. The advertisement did not indicate that it was an undercover operation. On or about that same date, Mr. Rodriguez placed a phone call using the same number on the advertisement. At the time Mr. Rodriguez placed the call, he was unaware that the advertisement was part of an undercover operation. During the phone conversation, Mr. Rodriguez communicated with Detective Takeya Close (Detective Close), an undercover agent who posed as a prostitute. Detective Close did not identify herself to Mr. Rodriguez as an undercover agent. Mr. Rodriguez communicated to Detective Close that he desired sexual services from her in exchange for money. Detective Close informed Mr. Rodriguez that the price for sexual services ranged from 50 to 80 dollars. A “quickie” service consisted of 15 minutes or less of sexual activity and cost 50 dollars. A “full service” consisted of a half-hour of sexual activity and cost 80 dollars. Mr. Rodriguez told Detective Close that he wanted a “full service” and was willing to pay her either price for her sexual services. Detective Close then provided Mr. Rodriguez a meeting location, a residential house at 4903 Newton Court in St. Cloud, Florida. Law enforcement used the residential house as part of the undercover operation. They agreed to meet at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez arrived at the agreed time at the St. Cloud residential house that was part of the undercover operation. Detective Close, posed as a prostitute, greeted Mr. Rodriguez at the front door. Once Mr. Rodriguez entered the house, law enforcement officers arrested and detained him. During a search of Mr. Rodriguez incident to his arrest, law enforcement officers discovered his cellular phone, which contained the undercover phone number in the call history log, and 50 dollars cash. Detective Close’s credible testimony was that, on or about February 10, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez communicated with her, agreed to pay her money for her sexual services, and arrived at the St. Cloud undercover residential house attempting to engage in prostitution. Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony that the purpose of his communication with Detective Close and his arrival at the St. Cloud residential house was to receive a massage was not credible. His cellular phone showed that he had called the undercover number and that he went to the St. Cloud undercover house at the agreed time. On or about April 12, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez was driving a white SUV. Devon Littlejohn (Ms. Littlejohn), a prostitute, was standing on the corner of Wakulla and Orange Blossom Trail, an area known for prostitution activity. When Mr. Rodriguez drove past where Ms. Littlejohn was standing, Ms. Littlejohn waived at him. Mr. Rodriguez made a U-turn and drove up to Ms. Littlejohn. Ms. Littlejohn approached Mr. Rodriguez while he was in his vehicle and engaged in conversation with him. Ms. Littlejohn solicited sexual services to Mr. Rodriguez by asking him if he wanted a “date.” Mr. Rodriguez answered affirmatively and then asked Ms. Littlejohn if she had a room. Ms. Littlejohn answered yes. Mr. Rodriguez then asked Ms. Littlejohn about the price for her sexual services, and she informed him that “full service” costs 80 dollars. Mr. Rodriguez agreed to pay Ms. Littlejohn 80 dollars in exchange for her sexual services. Ms. Littlejohn entered the passenger side of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez then drove off with Ms. Littlejohn inside his vehicle. On April 12, 2009, Law Enforcement Sheriff Deputy Scott Bearns (Deputy Bearns) of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office was patrolling the Orange Blossom Trail area when he drove pass Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle. Deputy Bearns conducted a traffic stop on Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle for having an illegal window tint. Mr. Rodriguez pulled his vehicle over at a parking lot across the street from the place where Ms. Littlejohn was originally standing. Deputy Bearns recognized Ms. Littlejohn as a prostitute in the local area and observed her and Mr. Rodriguez in the vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez informed Deputy Bearns that he worked as a correctional officer. Deputy Bearns then escorted Ms. Littlejohn outside of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle and Mirandized her. Ms. Littlejohn revealed to Deputy Bearns that Mr. Rodriguez had agreed for her to perform sexual services in exchange for 80 dollars. Ms. Littlejohn provided Deputy Bearns a written statement to that effect. Deputy Bearns arrested Mr. Rodriguez for assignation to commit prostitution. Ms. Littlejohn was not arrested. Incident to the arrest, another deputy conducted a search of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle and discovered a total of 102 dollars cash. Ms. Littlejohn’s credible testimony was that Mr. Rodriguez communicated with her, agreed to pay her money for her sexual services, and allowed her to enter his vehicle in an attempt to engage in prostitution. Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony that Ms. Littlejohn jumped in his vehicle without his consent and was hanging out of the vehicle with the door open was not credible.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Jose R. Rodriguez violated sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7) and rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 21st day of June, 2011.
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
