Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1988, shortly before 9:00 a.m., Sheriff Deputy William Emral of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office was notified by radio that the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had received an anonymous telephone call advising that two white males were loading what appeared to be narcotics into a white four-door Cadillac, with Florida license plate number 367-ZGX. The caller indicated that the Cadillac was headed northbound on the highway from Lower Matecumbe Key. Deputy Emral then took up a stationary position at mile marker 84 and began watching the northbound traffic. At about 9:05 a.m., he observed the Cadillac described by the anonymous caller. Deputy Emral began to follow the subject Cadillac northbound. He followed the Cadillac for approximately one mile and then activated his emergency lights and pulled the Cadillac over. From the time Deputy Emral first saw the subject Cadillac until the time he pulled the Cadillac over, he did not observe anything about the car or the driver that would have caused him to stop the Cadillac. Had it not been for the information provided by the anonymous caller, Deputy Emral would not have stopped the subject Cadillac. The Respondent, Mark Alfred Herre, was driving the Cadillac at the time Deputy Emral pulled it over. Mr. Herre did not flee and obeyed the directions given to him by Deputy Emral. He produced his driver's license which showed his name as Mark Alfred Herre. The car was rented and, when requested, he produced the rental contract showing that it had been rented by another individual. Deputy Emral reported this information to his base and to his superior, Captain Wilkinson, who later arrived at the scene. Deputy Emral observed two bags, one green and one gray. These were soft sided bags and appeared to be stuffed between the rear and front seats of the rented car, on both the driver and passenger sides. They were relative large, approximately three feet by four feet in size. The rental contract produced by Mr. Herre indicated that the vehicle was rented by a Maryland resident named Robert E. Lee. Mr. Herre could produce no authorization from Mr. Lee that he was entitled to use the vehicle nor could he produce the name of someone who could confirm he was authorized to be driving the subject vehicle. At about this time, Captain Wilkinson arrived at the scene as backup. At this point, Mr. Herre was not suspected of a crime and continued to answer questions from the Deputy. He stated that the bags in the car contained diving gear. Deputy Emral is a certified diver and the story seemed suspicious and inconsistent with the Deputy's previous diving experiences. Mr. Herre did not ask any questions or make other inquiries as to why he was stopped. Deputy Emral did explain that an anonymous tip was received and discussed this information with the Petitioner. At this point, Deputy Emral and Captain Wilkinson conferred and because of the information received by the anonymous tip to the Sheriff's Office and the inability of the Petitioner to prove he had authorization to be driving the rented vehicle, they decided that the vehicle should be taken into custody. In preparation for taking a vehicle into custody, an inventory of the vehicle is made as a standard procedure. Mr. Herre was not placed under arrest at this time. Mr. Herre was asked for, but declined to give, permission for the Deputy to search the vehicle. The vehicle was then searched and it was determined that the two bags in the passenger compartment contained bales of marijuana. Captain Wilkinson then took charge of the vehicle and drove it to the Sheriff's Office. Captain Wilkinson stated that even if no contraband were in the vehicle, he would probably have driven it to the substation to await confirmation that Mr. Herre was actually authorized to be in possession of the rented car and the same was not actually stolen. At the Sheriff's Office, the Cadillac was thoroughly searched and the car and its contents were photographed. Three bales of marijuana were recovered from the back seat and ten bales of marijuana were recovered from the trunk. Samples tested positive for marijuana. For purposes of this case, the parties have stipulated that the marijuana found in the subject Cadillac weighed a total of 300 pounds. On November 17, 1988, the Department issued a Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. The assessment was based on an estimated retail price for marijuana of $700.00 per pound times the stipulated 300 pounds, which comes to a total estimated retail value of $210,000.00. The tax, surcharge, and penalty assessed against Mr. Herre were as follows: 50% Tax $105,000.00 25% Surcharge 52,500.00 Additional penalty of 50% 78,750.00 Total Amount of assessment $236,250.00 Daily interest on the amount due is $51.78. The Notice of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings described above was properly and correctly prepared and notice of it was properly given to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. On December 28, 1988, Mr. Herre was sentenced in Case No. 33-88-00446- CF-A to a period of five (5) years probation and to pay $5,000.00 in costs. The sentence in the aforementioned case was as a result of criminal charges arising from Petitioner's arrest for the conduct alleged in the Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings dated November 17, 1988.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Mark Alfred Herre, is liable for taxes, surcharges, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and assessing the amount of such liability at $236,250.00, plus interest at the rate of $51.78 per day since November 7, 1988. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Bronis, Esquire 1395 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March 1991. Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Gary Howland, engaged in conduct, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, which is sufficient to warrant the Petitioner's suspension of this employment without pay in accordance with the rules of Petitioner as set forth in Chapter 6C-5.27, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, Gary P. Howland, was employed by Petitioner in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences as a visiting associate research scientist through an appointment which ended, by its terms, on June 30, 1979. On August 30, 1978, Respondent was charged with a felony, to-wit: unlawful possession and sale of a controlled substance in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. During September of 1978, Petitioner learned that Respondent was arrested and charged with the unlawful delivery and possession of a controlled substance. Petitioner immediately took steps to suspend and ultimately terminate Respondent's appointment. On September 26, 1978, Respondent was suspended from his position without pay. On October 11, 1978, Respondent challenged Petitioner's action in suspending him without pay and through an option exercised by Respondent, the matter was referred to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on February 13, 1979. 2/ On May 10, 1979, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was then pending before the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. Pursuant to a consideration of Respondent's motion to dismiss the charges filed before the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (Committee), a decision was entered by that Committee recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted based on a determination that the University did not follow certain procedural safeguards. Specifically, the Committee recommended that: The matter not be sent to a plenary hearing; That the President determine that the suspension was unlawful; That Respondent be awarded back pay through June 30, 1979; and The President direct that Respondent's employment record show that he was not terminated for cause and that his suspen- sion was unlawful. By letter dated November 2, 1979, Respondent was advised by Petitioner's President, Robert Q. Marston, that the recommendation of the Committee was being rejected and the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 3/ Lee Cowart has been employed by the Alachua County Sheriff's Office for approximately three (3) years. During times material in 1978, he worked as an undercover agent in the Drugs and Narcotics section of the Sheriff's Office. On April 21, 1978, Officer Cowart met Respondent at the Main Street Lounge in Gainesville, Florida, and discussed the use, sale and purchase of four grams of cocaine for the agreed-upon price of three hundred dollars ($300.00). Officer Cowart observed the transaction via a visual surveillance of Respondent from a van. Officer Cowart paid Respondent three hundred dollars ($300.00) and took delivery of the substance, had it analyzed by the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration, which analysis revealed that of 3.8 grams received, 29 percent thereof was cocaine hydrochloride. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Officer Coward is trained as a field agent and has field tested approximately two hundred (200) samples of unlawful drugs during his career of employment with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office. Officer Cowart performed a field test of the substance delivered by Respondent, which test proved positive. Dr. F.A. Wood, Dean of Research, Food and Agricultural Sciences, was familiar with Respondent's tenure of employment at the University. Respondent joined the staff of the University during 1978 as a temporary appointee for a one-year term. Respondent was paid from funds received through a NASA grant. Pursuant to the terms of Respondent's appointment at the University, he did not earn tenure. Dean Wood considered Respondent's temporary suspension and decided that based on the evidence presented to him, that Respondent's suspension be made permanent. In making this decision, Dean Wood relied on the information gathered by the Vice President and the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. (Testimony of Dr. Wood.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's suspension of Respondent without pay on September 26, 1978, be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 11, 1990, and issued certificate number 4-90-502-02. On May 31, 1990, Dawn Rees was working in concert with the Police Department of Williston, Florida, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a confidential informant regarding illegal drug activity in the Williston area. In the course of her work, Rees would meet with various individuals and attempt to buy illegal drugs. As a prelude to each of these meetings, Rees would be searched by law enforcement officials to determine that she had no illegal drugs on her person. Then, she would be "wired" or fitted with sonic monitoring equipment and sent to negotiate the illegal drug purchase. Upon her return from the drug rendezvous, Rees would turn over any contraband purchased by her and submit again to a personal search. Rees' conversations with the persons from whom she sought to buy drugs was monitored and recorded by authorities via the broadcast of those communications to them through the "wire" worn by Rees. On the evening of May 31, 1994, Rees went to the residence where Respondent lived and spoke with William Lynch, a friend of Respondent who also resided in the house, concerning the purchase of an ounce of marijuana. The conversation between Lynch and Rees took place on the front porch of the residence. Lynch told Rees that he could get the marijuana for her. Later that evening, Rees, equipped with the hidden listening device described above, returned and entered the residence to get the promised marijuana. Sometime later, Rees left the residence and met with law enforcement authorities. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, a field test of the substance obtained from Lynch in the residence by Rees, and provided to authorities that night, identified the drug as marijuana. As established by Rees' testimony at the final hearing, she was involved in several other investigations as a confidential informant during the same general time span that she was also involved in the drug purchase at Respondent's residence. Rees testified from the basis of her recollection of events that had occurred several years prior to final hearing. Respondent was present and operating a "Nintendo" game when Rees entered the house. Respondent engaged in conversation with Rees, but did not observe the later exchange of money for marijuana between her and Lynch. The exchange, as established by Lynch's candid and credible testimony, took place in a back bedroom of the house, out of the presence of Respondent. Respondent testified that he had no knowledge of the transaction or the presence of illegal drugs in the house. Accordingly, Rees' testimony, absent further corroboration by other direct admissible evidence, that Respondent knew illicit drugs were on the premises and observed the drug transaction, cannot be credited. A transcript, presented at the final hearing and purportedly derived from the tape of conversations had between Rees and persons in the residence garnered via the "wire" worn by Rees, offers no proof in support of a contention that Respondent was aware of the presence or sale of illegal drugs on the premises. As established by the credible testimony of Respondent, and corroborated by Lynch, Respondent was unaware of the presence of illicit drugs in the residence or the sale of such drugs in the residence at any time, contrary to allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Later, Lynch moved out of the residence. Respondent was arrested several months later in connection with the incident. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that those charges were subsequently nolle prossed by the Office of the State Attorney, 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The evidence presented by Petitioner of Respondent's knowledge and possible participation in the possession and sale of an illicit drug, marijuana, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, is met by Respondent's credible denial of any knowledge as to the alleged events. Further, Respondent's assertion of innocence is corroborated by the testimony of William Lynch. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent knew that drugs were in the house on the night in question or that Respondent knew of the drug sale to Dawn Rees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1994. DON W. DAVIS 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 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2 Accepted. 3-4 Rejected, the transcript reference shows that Respondent was arrested on February 5, 1991, following the May, 1990 incident. 5-6 Accepted. 7-8 Subordinate to HO's findings on these points. Specifically, Ms. Rees is found to have been mistaken about the content of her conversations with Respondent and without a basis to draw the conclusion that Respondent was a willing and knowledgeable participant in illegal activity. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent had the transcript admitted to show its lack of probative value. At no time does Respondent adopt the transcript in order to prove the case against himself. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Pauline Ingreham-Drayton Attorney at Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement 711 B Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Bova, Jr. 624 S.W. 70th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Leon Lowry, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent attempted to obtain his license to practice medicine by fraudulent representations, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes, or if Respondent misrepresented or concealed a material fact during any phase of a licensing or disciplinary process, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact By application dated and acknowledged on December 27, 1993, Respondent applied for a medical license by endorsement. Respondent filed the application with the Board of Medicine on January 12, 1994. Question 6 on the application asks: Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Yes No ; a misdemeanor? Yes No . Have any judgments ever been entered against you? Yes No . Have you ever been sued for malpractice? Yes No . In response, Respondent typed X’s in the “No” boxes for the first two questions in Question 6. Immediately above the signature of Respondent and acknowledgement of the notary public, on the last page of the application, is the statement: I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice medicine/surgery in the State of Florida. In fact, on October 24, 1988, Respondent was found guilty, after a three-day jury trial, of 12 misdemeanor counts of failure to remit a total of over $47,000 in state sales taxes due from November 20, 1985, through December 20, 1986. On December 22, 1988, the court sentenced Respondent to pay a fine of $12,000 on all 12 counts and reasonable court costs, and serve six months’ probation on each of the 12 counts, with the periods of probation to run consecutively. Respondent’s explanation for the omission from the application is that he mistakenly believed that the only misdemeanors covered by the question were those involving the practice of medicine. Respondent’s explanation for the nondisclosure is unreasonable. Nothing in the language of Question 6 limits the scope of the inquiry to misdemeanors involving the practice of medicine. The preceding question in Question 6 asks about felonies without qualification or limitation, and it is absurd to interpret this question as not asking about any felony, such as bank robbery, even though the felony did not involve the practice of medicine. For the same reason, Respondent knew that he was to have disclosed any misdemeanor, even if it did not involve the practice of medicine. Respondent’s explanation for the commission of the crimes is more plausible. Briefly, Respondent testified that he had invested about $100,000 of the total of $250,000 in the acquisition of the Philadelphia franchise of long-distance telephone provider that had emerged immediately following the breakup of AT&T in the mid 1980s. Essentially reselling AT&T long-distance services, the new company paid AT&T at wholesale for the services that it marked up and sold at retail to end users. Respondent explained that he had been an absentee owner for much of the time. Also, the AT&T billing for this new arrangement was confused and irregular. Changes in ownership preceding and following Respondent’s investment in the company further complicated the situation. A Pennsylvania revenue auditor contacted Respondent over a year after he had sold his stock in the company in 1986, gotten married, and been traveling extensively out of state. At this time, Respondent learned of the company’s sales tax problems, which involved a complicated telecommunications excise tax. Respondent’s corporate purchaser was no longer operating the company, which had become bankrupt. Respondent paid the taxes due, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nevertheless prosecuted him for his role in the failure of the company to pay its taxes. After sentencing, Respondent paid the fine and served his probation without incident. He disclosed the misdemeanor convictions to the Pennsylvania agency regulating the practice of medicine and was able to continue practicing medicine there. After consideration of Respondent’s application, the Florida Board of Medicine issued Respondent license number ME 0066606.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tanya Willaims, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C03 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim M. Kluck Carol Gregg Senior Attorneys Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Christopher Grillo 1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was a licensed Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, doing business as Steven Miller Insurance and Associates located at 718 Broadway, Suite 2, Daytona Beach, Florida. On June 2, 1983, the Respondent was charged by a Criminal Information in Case No. 83-2219-CC with two (2) felony counts, Count I being presentation of a fraudulent insurance claim, in violation of section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and County II being grand theft of the second degree, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes. On January 5, 1984, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the felony offense of Grand Theft of the Second Degree, a Third Degree Felony, Case No. 83-2219-CC, in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Volusia County, Florida. On January 5, 1984, the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit accepted Respondent's plea of Nolo Contendere and placed Respondent on three (3) years of supervised probation, withholding adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence. On July 8, 1985, Respondent was discharged from probation after successfully completing eighteen (18) months of his three (3) year probationary period. Respondent's testimony was that: (1) his boat, a 24- foot Regal Royal was taken while parked across from his home just prior to June 29, 1982; (2) he reported the theft to the Daytona Beach Police Department on June 29, 1982; (3) he filed an insurance claim several months after reporting the theft to the police and was paid; (4) approximately one (1) year later his boat was found in the possession of his wife's sister and her husband; and (5) he plead nolo contendere to the charge of grand theft on advice of counsel that a plea of nolo contendere was the same as pleading innocent, would not affect his insurance license and the plea would avoid putting a strain on his marriage. Mainly this testimony went unrebutted by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes. For such violation, considering the circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 4 with the exception of the language that "Respondent was sentenced." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 specifically states that sentence was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation. Rejected on a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5 with the exception of the date July 1, 1985. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 shows the order was entered on July 8, 1985. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Respondent did not number the paragraphs in his Proposed Findings of Facts but for purposes of this Appendix a number has been assigned to each paragraph.) This information was considered as background information and, therefore, covered in the background portion of this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1. This information was considered as background information and, therefore, was covered in the background portion of this Recommended Order. The information in the first sentence was considered as background information and, therefore, was covered in the background portion of this Recommended Order. The second sentence is Respondent's interpretation of what Petitioner alleges and is not a finding of fact but more a conclusion of law. 5.-6. Other than as adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6, rejected as immaterial, unnecessary and unsupported hearsay. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 4 and 5 with the exception of the language "after completing six months he was released." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 and Respondent's testimony on lines 15-19, page 15 of the transcript shows Respondent served eighteen (18) months of his probationary period. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Santucci, Esquire 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter Department of Insurance and Treasurer State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol - Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified corrections officer, certificate number 68527. On March 24, 1994, Sergeant Farless made a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Respondent. It was approximately 3:00 a.m. and Sgt. Farless had observed Respondent's vehicle fail to remain in a single lane. Sgt. Farless asked Respondent to produce a driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. When Respondent advised Sgt. Farless he had a firearm in the glove compartment, he was requested to exit his vehicle. When Respondent exited the vehicle, Sgt. Farless noticed that the Respondent's eyes were bloodshot, his balance unsteady, his speech slurred, and that he had a strong odor commonly associated with alcoholic beverages. Sgt. Farless directed Respondent to remain at the rear of the vehicle while he went to the glove compartment to secure the firearm. Sgt. Farless observed what appeared to be a piece of crack cocaine in the middle of the driver's seat. Deputy Hyde arrived at the scene in backup to Sgt. Farless. Sgt. Farless requested a narcotics identification test kit from Deputy Hyde for the suspected substance. Deputy Hyde field tested the substance taken from Respondent's vehicle and it received a positive reaction for the presence of cocaine. The positive test was observed by Sgt. Farless and Respondent. Sgt. Farless placed Respondent under arrest for possession of cocaine and secured him in the back of the sheriff's vehicle. Deputy Hyde and Sgt. Farless then searched the Respondent's vehicle and found a second piece of a substance suspected to be rock cocaine. Deputy Hyde performed a narcotics field test on the second substance seized from Respondent's vehicle which also reacted positively for the presence of cocaine. The criminal charges against Respondent were resolved through a pretrial intervention program. Because of such resolution, the two substances taken from Respondent's vehicle were never sent to a crime laboratory for further testing and verification. Sgt. Farless and Deputy Hyde have been trained in the use of the field test to determine drug identification. Each has numerous arrests resulting from the field testing of a suspected substance. The area Respondent was traveling through is known as a high drug area with a high crime rate. Although he was alone at the time of the traffic stop, Respondent theorized that someone had put the crack cocaine in his vehicle.
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for his alleged involvement with a drug transaction based upon Respondent’s failure to maintain good moral character?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner licensed Respondent as a corrections officer on September 18, 1987. He holds corrections certificate number 81237. Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Sumter Correctional Institution from December 3, 1993, through June 9, 1994. In August, 1993, Respondent was the subject of a law enforcement investigation in which the DEA was the lead investigating agency. The investigation also involved Florida law enforcement agencies. The principle law enforcement personnel responsible for the investigation were certified in Florida. Investigation took place in Bradford County, Florida. The arrangement involved in the investigation was one in which Angel Allen, a police officer with the University of Florida police department, together with a confidential informant, contacted Respondent for purposes of purchasing drugs. The initial contact between Officer Allen, the confidential informant and Respondent was made on August 10, 1993. They met at a convenience store in Starke, Florida. At that time the confidential informant, who was known to the Respondent, introduced Officer Allen who was using an assumed name. Respondent then instructed the confidential informant to follow him. The parties went to a residential location off Lawtey Road. Respondent was in his vehicle, Officer Allen and the confidential informant followed in the confidential informant’s vehicle. Respondent entered the residence and passed another person who was coming out of the residence. The other person said to Respondent “I don’t know where its at.” Respondent entered the residence and then came back out and got into the car driven by the confidential informant. He sat next to Officer Allen on the passenger side. Respondent told the driver to proceed to the end of the block, and make a left, and then another left, and stop where a subject was standing on the street. Respondent then rolled down the window and spoke to a man who was standing there. Respondent used several names in referring to the individual during the conversation that ensued. Respondent instructed that individual to go around to the drivers side. When the individual reached the drivers side the confidential informant asked him how much an “eight ball” was, that is a street term referring to a certain amount of powdered cocaine. The man replied “two.” This refers to $200. The confidential informant handed the man $200. In turn the man gave the confidential informant a small plastic bag containing 2.406 grams of cocaine hydrochloride total net. The drug transaction took place in Respondent’s presence. Once purchased the confidential informant showed the cocaine to Respondent and asked if the drug seller had done her right. Respondent replied “yes.” The parties then returned to what was believed to be Respondent’s residence and he exited the vehicle. On August 17, 1993, further contact was made between Officer Allen, the confidential informant and Respondent. Respondent was reached through his pager. He returned the call to Officer Allen and the confidential informant and instructed them to come by his house in Starke, Florida. The purpose of the contact with Respondent was to purchase additional cocaine. When Officer Allen and the confidential informant arrived at Respondent’s house he entered their vehicle and sat next to Officer Allen and directed the confidential informant to the same location where the cocaine had been purchased on August 10, 1993. When the parties arrived at that location there was a person on a bicycle. The bicyclist came to the drivers side and Officer Allen gave the bicyclist $200, in return for cocaine which the bicyclist handed to the confidential informant, who in turn handed it to Officer Allen. Again the transaction took place in full view of Respondent. During this transaction Respondent made some comment to the effect of getting together with Officer Allen and the confidential informant and partying with them and having a “blow-out.” Respondent said that he had been “staying away from the stuff” referring to the cocaine, but that he would like to get together with the confidential informant and Officer Allen and have a “blow-out” in a couple of weeks. The bicyclist was the same person who had sold the parties drugs on August 10, 1993. On August 17, 1993, Respondent referred to that individual as “Frank,” a name that he had used in referring to the drug seller on the previous occasion. Respondent on this occasion stated that “Frank is good guy.” Respondent said that “Frank” was an up front guy and that he would make it right if it wasn’t right, referring to the cocaine if it wasn’t the correct amount, that “Frank” would make it the right amount of cocaine. After the transaction, Officer Allen and the confidential informant drove Respondent to what was believed to be his residence. The item that was purchased from “Frank” on August 17, 1993, was cocaine hydrochloride, 1.848 grams total net. Following these events, Respondent voluntarily gave a statement to Michael F. Page, Regional Inspector Supervisor with the Florida Department of Corrections, in which Respondent admitted being involved in the drug transactions. The statement was taken through a taped interview. In this statement, Respondent acknowledged knowing the drug seller “Frank” and that “Frank” was a person who sold drugs in the neighborhood. Respondent also admitted that he knew the purpose of the visits to the neighborhood was for the confidential informant to obtain drugs and that he took the confidential informant to a place where drugs were dealt. Respondent’s comment’s during the interview in which he said that his reason for accompanying Officer Allen and the confidential informant in purchasing drugs was to protect the confidential informant given the nature of the neighborhood, does not excuse Respondent’s conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the fact finds and the conclusions of law reached it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which revokes Respondent’s correction certificate number 81237.DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Simon L. Mitchell Route 3, Box 334 Starke, FL 32091 Simon L. Mitchell Post Office Box 63 Starke, FL 32091 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Reyes P. Ramos, was employed as a law enforcement officer by the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and was duly certified by petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Department), having been issued certificate number 19-83-002-05 on October 29, 1983. On January 30, 1990, respondent, as part of his annual physical examination for the Opa-Locka Police Department, reported to Toxicology Testing Services (TTS) and provided a urine sample to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the sample taken from respondent proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, in a concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter. Such finding is consistent with the ingestion of cocaine, as cocaine is the only drug commonly available that, when ingested into the human body, produces the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. On February 5, 1990, the Opa-Locka Police Department notified respondent that the analysis of his urine sample had proved positive for the presence of cocaine, a controlled substance. In response, respondent offered to provide another sample for further analysis. Later that day, February 5, 1990, respondent provided a second sample of urine to TTS to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the second sample also proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, but this time at a concentration of 9.2 nanograms per milliliter. Such reduced concentration is consistent with the initial concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter disclosed by the first sample, assuming abstinence during the intervening period. In concluding that the urine samples respondent gave proved positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite, careful consideration has been given to the collection, storage and handling procedures adopted by TTS, as well as its testing methods. In this regard, the procedures and methods employed by TTS were shown to provide reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produce, through Gas Chromograph/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS), a reliable measure of the concentration of cocaine metabolite in the body. 1/ While the testing demonstrates the presence of cocaine metabolite in respondent's system, and therefore the presence of cocaine, it does not establish how ingestion occurred. 2/ It may be reasonably inferred, however, that such ingestion was proscribed by law, absent proof that the subject drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issued by a physician or that the presence of cocaine metabolite could otherwise be lawfully explained. In response to the testing which revealed the presence of cocaine metabolite in his urine, respondent credibly denied the use of cocaine, and offered the testimony of a number of witnesses who know him well to lend credence to his denial. Those witnesses, who also testified credibly, observed that respondent is a person of good moral character who, among other qualities has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and the character to observe the difference, has respect for the rights of others, has respect for the law, and could be relied upon in a position of trust and confidence. Moreover, from the testimony of those witnesses who have known respondent for an extended period of time, commencing well prior to the incident in question, it may be concluded that, in their opinions, it is the antithesis of respondent's character to have ingested or used cocaine. Apart from his denial, respondent offered two possible explanations for the presence of cocaine in his system: (1) that, during the week of January 18, 1990, he had been in contact with four to five K-9 training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine, while cleaning out his dog's possessions, and (2) that he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, during the course of duty, in the early part of January 1990. As to the first explanation, the proof demonstrates that respondent was, and had been for some time, a canine officer with the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and had a dog named "Eagle" as his partner. "Eagle" was a cross-trained drug and work dog. In or about September 1988, respondent and his dog attended narcotic detection training through the Florida Highway Patrol, and received training aids, which contained "pseudo-cocaine," for use in training dogs in the detection of cocaine. These aids were comprised of newborn baby socks, inside of which was placed pseudo-cocaine. The socks were then closed at the top with rubber bands and placed inside a folded towel, which was then rolled and taped. According to respondent, he continued to use these aids 2-3 times a week, after leaving the Florida Highway Patrol course, to keep his dog proficient. Eagle died in early January 1990 and, according to respondent, the week of January 18, 1990, respondent cleared a number of items that were used in the care or training of Eagle from a small aluminum shed in his back yard. Among those items were the training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine. According to respondent, he disposed of the training aids by cutting the tape from the towels, removed the sock, and then shook the pseudo-cocaine into a trash can, which caused some residue to become airborne and contact him. Respondent's counsel theorizes that such contact with the pseudo-cocaine, as well as the possibility that some residue could have been lodged under respondent's fingernails, when coupled with the fact that respondent occasionally bites his nails, could be an explanation for the positive reading respondent received. Notably, respondent offered no proof at hearing, through representatives from the Florida Highway Patrol or otherwise, as to the chemical composition of the pseudo-cocaine. Under such circumstances, there is no showing of record that the pseudo-cocaine could have resulted in the positive reading he received, and it would be pure speculation to conclude otherwise. As to respondent's second explanation, that in early January 1990, during the course of duty, he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, it likewise does not provide a rational explanation for his positive test results. Notably, according to respondent, that rock cocaine was bagged and, necessarily, he would not have had physical contact with the substance. Moreover, even if touched such would not explain its ingestion, and, considering the lapse of time from the event and his testing, is not a rational explanation for the source of his positive results. While the explanations respondent advanced at hearing were not persuasive, such does not compel the conclusion that his testimony is to be discredited. Indeed, if respondent never used cocaine, it is not particularly telling that he could not offer a plausible explanation for what he perceived to be an aberration. Here, while the results of the urinalysis point toward guilt, respondent's credible testimony, the character evidence offered on his behalf, and respondent's employment record suggest otherwise. With regard to respondent's employment history, the proof demonstrates that respondent was on active duty with the United States military from 1966 until 1972, and with the Florida National Guard (FNG) from 1974 until 1983. Prior to reverting to an inactive status with the FNG, respondent attended and graduated from the Southeastern Institute of Criminal Justice, a police academy, and was thereafter certified as a law enforcement officer. Following certification, respondent was employed by the Village of Indian Creek as a police officer for one year, and from January 1985 until his severance in 1990 as a police officer with the City of Opa-Locka. Currently, respondent is employed by the FNG, with the rank of Sergeant First Class, as a military criminal investigator assigned to counter drug programs for the Department of Justice. From respondent's initial employment as a police officer through his current employment, but for the incident in question, respondent has consistently been recognized as a professional, loyal and dedicated police officer who has also dedicated substantial personal time and resources to community service. During this service, he was frequently commended for his performance, and he has further demonstrated dedication to his profession through continued training in the law enforcement field. Among those who testified on his behalf, and spoke approvingly of respondent's good moral character, were Christina Royo, a sworn law enforcement officer with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and Alejandro Suarez, a Sergeant First Class with the United States Military, employed as a criminal intelligence analyst, and currently attached to respondent's FNG unit. Each of these witnesses are employed in positions of trust involving sensitive areas of law enforcement, and have known the respondent well for over fifteen years. In their opinions, which are credible, respondent enjoys a reputation reflecting good moral character and, it may be gleamed from their testimony, the use of controlled substances by respondent would be most uncharacteristic. Given the nominal amount of cocaine metabolite disclosed by testing and the credible proof regarding respondent's character, the inference that would normally carry petitioner's burden following proof of a positive test for cocaine metabolite, that such finding reflected the unlawful ingestion of cocaine, cannot prevail. Rather, considering the proof, no conclusion can be reached, with any degree of certainty, as to the reason for the positive test results. Accordingly, such results, standing alone, do not support the conclusion that respondent unlawfully ingested cocaine or that he is lacking of good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents 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, Helen B. Horton (Respondent Horton) was licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0260577. At all times material hereto, Helen B. Horton Realty, Inc. (Respondent Horton Realty), was a corporation licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0267231. At all times material hereto, Eric Carlton Brent was licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Mr. Brent is the son of Respondent Horton. On December 20, 1993, Respondent Horton ceased being the President of Respondent Horton Realty. At that time, Mr. Brent became the President, in addition to being the Secretary and Treasurer, of Respondent Horton Realty. On April 12, 1994, Mr. Brent and Respondent Horton, operating as brokers/salespersons for Respondent Horton Realty, negotiated a contract for the sale of residential property between John M. and Suzanne B. Patten (sellers) and Joseph M. Eldridge (buyer). The property was listed by Reserve Realty and Sales, Inc. (Reserve Realty). Respondents and Mr. Brent were representing the buyer. A provision of the contract provided for the buyer to pay a deposit of $1,000 to be held in escrow by Respondent Horton Realty. Also, the contract provided, among other things, that the closing was to take place on or before April 15, 1994. The buyer refused to pay the deposit without a home inspection. A satisfactory home inspection became a contingency to the contract and agreement. The home inspection was ordered and completed. The inspection contained several recommendations. Respondents notified the sellers and Reserve Realty of the recommendations. The buyer continued to refuse to pay the $1,000 deposit. Respondent Horton informed all parties, including the sellers and Reserve Realty, that the buyer had not paid and would not pay the deposit. All parties were aware that the buyer had not paid the $1,000 deposit. On the closing date of April 15, 1994, the deposit remained unpaid. As a result, Respondent Horton considered the transaction terminated. Mr. Brent made several unsuccessful requests to the buyer to pay the $1,000 deposit. At the end of April 1994, Mr. Brent was convinced that the buyer had no intentions of paying the deposit. Mr. Brent notified the buyer that neither he nor the Respondents would continue to represent him in the transaction. The buyer began to represent himself in the transaction. He dealt directly with Reserve Realty. In May 1994, Mr. Brent notified all parties, including the sellers and Reserve Realty, in writing that the transaction would not be completed due to the buyer's failure to pay the $1,000 deposit. At that time, all parties were aware that the buyer still had not paid the deposit and that the Respondents and Mr. Brent no longer represented the buyer in the transaction. In June 1994, as a result of a personal tragedy, Mr. Brent was no longer able to continue to operate Respondent Horton Realty. Finally, on or about July 15, 1994, Mr. Brent ceased operating and closed Respondent Horton Realty. At no time did Respondents or Mr. Brent receive the $1,000 deposit from the buyer. At no time did Respondent Horton Realty's escrow account contain a deposit from the buyer. At no time did Respondents or Mr. Brent receive a demand from the sellers or Reserve Realty, or any of their agents, for the deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint against Helen B. Horton and Helen B. Horton Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for a real estate sales associate license on the alleged grounds that Petitioner is in violation of Subsections 417.17(1)(a), 475.181, and 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible, in relevant part, for licensing real estate sales associates in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475. At a date not disclosed in the record, Petitioner applied for a real estate sales associate license, and Respondent subsequently issued the Notice of Denial. Petitioner is a male who was born in 1964 and is approximately 45 years old. From January 26, 1983, through May 5, 2002, Petitioner ranged in age from approximately 19-to- 38 years old. During those 19 years, Petitioner was convicted of approximately 15 crimes. Approximately seven of those convictions were for felonies. The felony convictions included larceny, aggravated battery with a weapon, burglary, grand larceny, grand theft, and possession of cocaine. Other convictions included resisting arrest without violence, criminal mischief, failure to appear, probation violation, and defrauding an innkeeper. Seven years have elapsed from the last conviction in 2002. During that time, Petitioner has married, purchased a home, and started his own business. However, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation when the scope and extent of the criminal history is weighed against the evidence of rehabilitation. Petitioner did not provide any letters of recommendation during the application process.2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 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 21st day of December, 2009.
