The Issue Should Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust or responsibility be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of requiring security background investigations of persons employed by employers under the Department's jurisdiction and licensing powers in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. The purpose of the security background screening is to determine if there are individuals who have committed an offense which would disqualify the individual from working in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. Petitioner was employed in a position of trust or responsibility by Anchor House Ministries in Auburndale (Anchor) located in Polk County, Florida, an agency, as that term is defined by Section 409.175(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which housed children and required licensure by the Department. Petitioner's job required that he be screened in accordance with level 2 standards for screening set forth in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. This screening revealed a felony conviction which disqualified Petitioner from employment in a position of trust or responsibility. Petitioner and Anchor were notified of Petitioner's disqualification. Thereafter, Petitioner was discharged from his employment with Anchor. Subsequent to being discharged by Anchor, Petitioner was employed by Lakeland Regional Medical Center (Lakeland Medical). The record is not clear if Petitioner's position with Lakeland Medical required that Petitioner be screened in accordance with Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. In any event, it appears that Petitioner was not screened as a result of his employment with Lakeland Medical. On June 4, 1992, the Grand Jurors of the State of West Virginia in and for the County of Braxton returned a 16-Count Indictment, Number 92-F-20 (Indictment), against Petitioner involving allegations of breaking and entering with the intent to steal which were alleged to have occurred between June 7, 1991, and February 19, 1992, and an allegation of aggravated robbery and felonious assault alleged to have occurred on January 7, 1992, contained in Count 10 of the Indictment. On July 14, 1992, Petitioner entered Appalachian Teen Challenge, Inc. (Appalachian) and successfully completed the long-term residential program offered by Appalachian on August 3, 1993. Thereafter, on December 21, 1993, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of grand larceny contained in Count 10 of the Indictment, a third degree felony under Section 812.014(2)(c)1., Florida Statutes. The court accepted the plea of guilty to grand larceny and adjudicated Petitioner guilty. The State of West Virginia moved to dismiss the remaining charges contained in the Indictment. The court granted the motion and all other charges were dismissed by the court. By a Sentencing Order dated December 23, 1993, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and committed the Petitioner to the custody of the West Virginia Commissioner of Corrections as a youthful offender to be assigned to a center for youthful offenders for a period of not less than six months, nor more than two years. Time served was to be at the discretion of the superintendent of the youthful offender center where Petitioner was assigned. The court also required that Petitioner undergo a period of training programs. After successfully completing the program requirements of Anthony Center, the youthful offender center where Petitioner was assigned, the court, by order dated July 7, 1994, released Petitioner from Anthony Center and placed Petitioner on probation for a period of five years. A condition of Petitioner's probation was restitution. Since being placed on probation, Petitioner has made monthly restitution payments and continues to make restitution payments. After being placed on probation, Petitioner moved to Florida and enrolled in Southeastern Bible College where he has earned 150 hours of college credits. Petitioner's move to Florida was approved by his probation officer in West Virginia. Petitioner has maintained contact with his probation officer in West Virginia since his move to Florida. Additionally, Petitioner, until just recently, maintained his residence in West Virginia. Since moving to Florida, Petitioner has married and, with the help of his father-in-law, purchased a home. There is no evidence in the court records of West Virginia concerning Petitioner's use of illegal drugs or alcohol during the time of his troubles in 1991 and 1992. However, when asked by the exemption committee concerning the use of illegal drugs and alcohol, Petitioner candidly admitted to the exemption committee that at time of his troubles in West Virginia during 1991 and 1992, he had been involved with illegal drugs and alcohol. However, Petitioner also advised the exemption committee that he was no longer involved with illegal drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, Petitioner advised the exemption committee that he had overcome his problem with drugs and alcohol though the church and his faith in God, without being involved in Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Likewise, Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, which I find to be credible, was that he had solved his drug and alcohol problem through the church and his faith in God, notwithstanding the testimony of Malcomb Miller or Robert King to the contrary. By order dated November 4, 1998, Petitioner's probation was discharged and terminated and Petitioner was released from the supervision of the court in West Virginia. There is sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner has been sufficiently rehabilitated to be employed in a position of trust and responsibility and that he will not present a danger if allowed to be employed in a position of trust or responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in positions of trust and responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley J. Lane, pro se 212 West Park Street Lakeland, Florida 33803 Jack Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Kenneth Burns (Respondent) is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. On or about November 26, 2000, Highway Patrol Trooper Brannon Snead saw a Camaro, with its emergency flashers on, parked on Highway 90 in the vicinity of State Road 10. Trooper Snead stopped to see if he could help and observed two white males hitting the passenger of a black Ford Mustang that was also parked alongside the road. Trooper Snead intervened and eventually arrested Respondent and charged him with criminal mischief, burglary of an automobile, and battery. Trooper Snead identified his arrest report which was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit A. Trooper Snead observed Respondent strike the driver of the Mustang twice. Trooper Snead observed that Respondent was under the influence of intoxicants and was impaired. After arresting Respondent, Trooper Snead transported him to the Leon County Jail. Trooper Snead observed Respondent's demeanor. Respondent was argumentative, combative, and uncooperative. Trooper Snead had to warn Respondent several times about his behavior. Respondent spit all over the back of Trooper Snead's patrol car. Detective Patricia Iadanza testified that she was delivering two criminals to the jail on November 26, 2000. She observed Trooper Snead with two persons who were in handcuffs in the booking area. One was quiet. The other person, who she later learned was Respondent, was loud and obnoxious. She found it necessary to tell Respondent to sit down and be quiet. Respondent was loud and rowdy and indicated he was a certified officer. Detective Iadanza reported she warned Respondent that his conduct would get him in serious trouble in the Leon County Sheriff's Department and he needed to straighten out. He did not stop his loud and rowdy behavior. Subsequently, she wrote a report regarding Respondent's behavior after he made a complaint about Trooper Snead. According to Petitioner's late-filed exhibit, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of trespass of a vehicle, battery, and criminal mischief. He was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's certification be suspended for 24 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Burns 1727 Dewey McGuire Road Perry, Florida 32348-8087 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 68-year-old female residing in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner’s most recent employment is with Linda L. Curtis Health Care Agency (Curtis Agency), where she “sits with patients,” and provides entertainment and meals for patients. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust. Specifically, the Agency’s mission includes serving and protecting vulnerable populations, including children and adults with developmental disabilities. In connection with her employment at Curtis Agency, Petitioner underwent background screening on July 26, 2017, and was deemed automatically disqualified from employment based on a past offense. See § 435.06, Fla. Stat. Petitioner applied to the Agency for an exemption from disqualification, pursuant to section 435.07, which the Agency denied and which forms the basis of the instant Petition for Administrative Hearing. Disqualifying Offense On September 25, 1999, Petitioner was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery for an incident at her home involving her 18-year-old cousin, Shanique Barner, whom she was raising, along with the cousin’s baby. The altercation began when Petitioner approached Ms. Barner about failing to keep her bedroom clean, an issue about which Petitioner had spoken to Ms. Barner repeatedly. The confrontation became physical and both parties began punching and hitting each other. When the fight ended, Petitioner took Ms. Barner to the hospital for a tetanus shot and treatment for a bite or bites inflicted by Petitioner during the altercation. An off-duty officer at the hospital was informed of the domestic violence incident and the arresting officer was dispatched to Petitioner’s residence. At Petitioner’s home, the arresting officer observed Ms. Barner with a swollen left eye and two bite marks on her left arm. After taking both parties’ statements, the officer arrested Petitioner and took her to a detention facility for booking. Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of domestic battery and adjudication was withheld. On October 4, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced to four months’ probation and ordered to pay court costs of $104. Terms of Petitioner’s probation included no contact with Ms. Barner, completion of an anger control program, and payment of the costs of supervision. Petitioner’s probation was early-terminated on November 2, 1999, at which time Petitioner had completed the anger management program, paid her fine and court costs in full, and was current in the monthly cost of supervision. Petitioner was 50 years old at the time of the disqualifying offense, and Ms. Barner was 18. By Petitioner’s account, Ms. Barner was a rebellious and troubled teenager, who had become pregnant at age 17 despite Petitioner’s attempts to persuade Ms. Barner to begin using birth control at age 15. Subsequent Non-Disqualifying Offense Petitioner had no further involvement with law enforcement until April 8, 2008, almost nine years later, when she was arrested and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The details of the incident are unclear and disputed. The record supports the following findings: For a month prior to the incident, Petitioner had allowed a male friend, Mr. Jones, to temporarily live at her home. Mr. Jones was ill, had lost his employment, and had applied for social security disability, but had not received payments in time to pay his rent. Mr. Jones had a “roommate,” Ms. Green, who was identified only as Mr. Jones’ girlfriend’s daughter. Ms. Green also moved into Petitioner’s home, temporarily, at the request of the girl’s mother. Apparently, Ms. Green, like Ms. Barner, was not much of a housekeeper. Despite assurances from Mr. Jones that Ms. Green would “clean behind herself,” Ms. Green frequently left dirty dishes in the sink, with which Petitioner was met upon her return from work. On the date of the incident, Petitioner returned from a day at work to find dirty dishes in her sink, left there by an unwelcome, and apparently ungracious, guest whom Petitioner, no doubt, expected to be a short-term guest. Petitioner informed Mr. Jones that Ms. Green would have to leave. Ms. Green began removing her belongings, but not at a pace Petitioner found very efficient, so Petitioner “assisted” in removal of Ms. Green’s belongings. Ms. Green objected, telling Petitioner not to touch her belongings. Petitioner responded by informing Ms. Green she could not re-enter Petitioner’s home to remove the rest of her belongings. Petitioner told Mr. Jones to remove the remainder of Ms. Green’s belongings. Petitioner positioned herself to block Ms. Green’s entry to Petitioner’s home. When Ms. Green attempted to enter Petitioner’s home, a physical altercation ensued. The altercation was broken up by Mr. Jones and Ms. Barner,1/ but proved only a brief interlude in the fighting. A second physical altercation ensued but the evidence conflicted as to which party initiated the fight, and whether either party was armed with a weapon of some sort. Ms. Green emerged from this altercation with a deep cut above her left eye. Following Ms. Green’s injury, Petitioner left the scene in her vehicle. An officer who had been dispatched to the scene observed Petitioner’s vehicle on his way to the scene, conducted a traffic stop, and transported Petitioner back to the scene. After the investigation, Petitioner was arrested and transported to a detention facility for booking. The State Attorney’s office declined to prosecute Petitioner and the charge against Petitioner was dropped. Educational and Employment History Petitioner maintained consistent employment both prior and subsequent to the 2008 arrest. Between April 2004 and March 2007, Petitioner was employed as a shop foreman and an office manager for Air Distributors Inc., a metal and fiberglass fabricator. Petitioner was a part-time cashier at WalMart from March 2007 to November 2011. Petitioner was employed with River Region Human Services (River Region) from April 2009 through June 2014. River Region is a residential rehabilitation facility providing methadone maintenance treatment to recovering addicts. At River Region, Petitioner served as a Monitor Technician, observing client activities and medication administration, filing behavior and incident reports, conducting perimeter checks, and transporting clients to off-site services. The record does not support a finding of the exact date on which Petitioner’s subsequent employment with Curtis Agency commenced. In connection with Petitioner’s employment by River Region, Petitioner received an exemption from disqualification from the Department of Children and Families. While employed with River Region, Petitioner completed a number of trainings sponsored by that agency, including Non- Violent Practices in 2013, as well as HIV/AIDS Parts I and II, HIPAA, Clinical Documentation, and Security Awareness in 2014. Subsequent Personal History The record was devoid of any subsequent history on Petitioner. It is unknown whether Petitioner lives alone or with roommates of any sort. Petitioner’s Exemption Request In her application for exemption, Petitioner provided a lengthy account of both incidents. Notably, Petitioner prefaced her explanation as follows: “To start I want to relate both incidents occurred because I cared about others. I tried to deaden this concern for others, but it just wouldn’t happen.” While there is some credibility in associating Petitioner’s actions in the first incident with a concern for her cousin, whom she was raising the record does not support a finding that the incident between Petitioner and Ms. Green, whom she was removing from her home for being untidy, is at all related to a concern for others. In her lengthy explanation of both incidents, Petitioner blamed the victim. With respect to her cousin, Petitioner explained that her cousin hit her first. With respect to Ms. Green, Petitioner explained that the victim came at her first with “something in her hand,” which Petitioner “immediately knocked out and caught.” Petitioner wrote: It was an unopened small red object. That’s when I recognized it was a small box cutter. As she kept coming I push [sic] it and cut her across her eyebrow. Petitioner’s account is troubling in many respects. First, if Petitioner recognized the object as a box cutter, she had time to drop the weapon, rather than use it against the victim, whether in self-defense or otherwise. Second, Petitioner’s account of the incident differs significantly from the accounts given by both Petitioner’s cousin and Mr. Jones to the officer at the scene. Both witnesses told the officer that, after the initial altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Green, Petitioner retrieved a scraper from her car, which she carried with her to her perch outside the door blocking Ms. Green’s reentry to her home.2/ If the witnesses’ accounts are accurate, Petitioner was untruthful on her application, and attempted to shift blame to the victim, when in actuality Petitioner was the party who intentionally armed herself for an anticipated second altercation with Ms. Green. Petitioner made no attempt to explain the discrepancy between her version of the 2008 incident and the version recounted in the police report. The lack of explanation is notable because Petitioner went out of her way to contradict other aspects of the police reports on both incidents. For example, while the police report noted Ms. Green suffered wounds on her chest, nose, and above her left eye, Petitioner insisted the 2008 report was incorrect and she cut Ms. Green only above the eye. As to the 1999 incident, the police report noted Ms. Barner had a swollen left eye and two bite marks on her left arm. Petitioner insisted the report was wrong, arguing that she bit Ms. Barner on the chest and not the arm. The remainder of Petitioner’s application is bereft of detail. In response to the question regarding the degree of harm to the victims or property, Petitioner noted only “Bite mark,” and “laceration over eyebrow.” Petitioner’s demeanor at hearing evidenced a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of her actions against Ms. Green. Assuming Petitioner’s version of the events is accurate, Petitioner could have permanently blinded Ms. Green by intentionally striking her in the face with a box cutter. Regarding whether Petitioner had stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying offense, Petitioner responded “None.” That response is contrary to Petitioner’s detailed description of the 1999 incident, which evidences significant stress between her teenage cousin, who was rebellious in many respects, including refusing to pick up after herself, not to mention bringing into the household an unexpected mouth to feed. With regard to current stressors and support system, Petitioner responded that she had no stress in her life and that prayer is her support system. She described her current living arrangements as a “2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment,” and that she has maintained her own household since she was 17 years of age. Petitioner failed to grasp the importance of distinguishing her current life circumstances and living arrangements from those at the time of the disqualifying offense and subsequent non-disqualifying offense. Without any distinguishing circumstances, the Agency is justified in questioning whether Petitioner’s circumstances are more stable. Petitioner stated that she had never received any counseling for any reason, and that she had never used or abused drugs or alcohol. Petitioner’s response to the question regarding whether she feels remorse and accepts responsibility for her actions reads as follows: Regret was immediately felt during incidents. We are responsible for our actions so to keep this always in mind take on fruitage of God’s spirit faith, goodness, kindness, love, longsuffering, joy, peace, mildness and self- control. Petitioner’s response is telling--it uses passive language and avoids the first person. Petitioner did not state, nor did she testify, that she regretted her actions, or that she was responsible for the harm caused. Both her written account and her live testimony evidence her intent to shift blame to the victims and acknowledge responsibility only in the broadest sense. Personal References Petitioner included two reference letters in support of her application: one from Ms. Barner and one from someone named Trinette Simmons. In Ms. Barner’s letter, she refers to Petitioner as her mom and explains that Petitioner cared for her from two weeks of age until five years of age, that she came to live with Petitioner again at age 13, and that she has “periodically resided at [Petitioner’s] residence for some years.” Ms. Barner states that Petitioner encouraged her and helped her graduate from school after becoming pregnant at age 17, and that love has always been in her mom’s heart. Petitioner did not explain her relationship to Ms. Simmons. The letter from Ms. Simmons states that she has known Petitioner since 2002, that Petitioner is capable of handling any situation “with thoughtfulness and maturity,” and that Petitioner is “a team player, as well as a team leader, who can adjust to changes within any environment.” The references are from persons who knew her when the 2008 incident occurred, but neither letter addresses the incident or explains that Petitioner’s behavior at that time was uncharacteristic, or that it has changed significantly since that incident. Moreover, neither of the letters is from an employer or other authority figure who has observed Petitioner interact with River Region clients or Curtis Agency patients. The Agency is charged with protecting the most vulnerable populations in Florida--children and adults with developmental disabilities. Some members of this population are uncommunicative, can be hostile, and act out. The Agency must be confident that any applicant seeking to work directly with these clients has demonstrated self-control and maturity to handle difficult, and often stressful, interactions with the clients. Both Petitioner’s disqualifying, and subsequent non- disqualifying, offense evidence Petitioner’s lack of self-control and good judgment when faced with stressful situations involving individuals who are defiant and refuse to take a course of action requested by Petitioner. Neither of Petitioner’s personal references document Petitioner’s ability to control herself and her reactions when faced with similar difficulties more recently. Petitioner’s account of the incidents shifts the blame to the victims and fails to demonstrate true remorse or responsibility for her actions, the harm she inflicted, and the potential for more serious harm based on her choices at the time of the incidents. While Petitioner seems to truly interested in continuing to help vulnerable citizens, even in a volunteer capacity as she nears retirement, she did not present evidence sufficient to demonstrate her rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a dentist, committed the offenses alleged in the second amended administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. References to Petitioner in this Recommended Order include the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which regulated the practice of dentistry prior to the creation of AHCA. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0005929. Respondent's main area of practice is general dentistry. Respondent's last known address is his residence at 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent lived at that address with his wife, Lisa Iver. Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant. Benzodiazepines, such as Valium and oxazepam, are central nervous system depressants that have the opposite effect of cocaine on the central nervous system. The usage of these two types of drugs by a cocaine user with medical knowledge may act to balance the visible and medically detectable effects of cocaine on the central nervous system. Since at least 1988, Respondent has been a cocaine addict. Various toxicology tests have reflected that he has taken a form of benzodiazepine following cocaine use. There are several factors that have worked to make Respondent's recovery more difficult. He has experienced severe marital problems, his mother was an alcoholic, and wife is also chemically dependent. The addiction recovery of one spouse directly affects the addiction recovery of the other. If one spouse falls off the wagon, the other spouse is very likely to fall out of recovery. The Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) is an independent program for monitoring certain impaired professionals, including dentists. PRN requires individuals to be evaluated and enter drug treatment, if appropriate, pursuant to a written agreement with the impaired practitioner. The PRN conducts random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between the treatment programs, PRN, and the Petitioner for the protection of the public. The advocacy of PRN is designed to protect practitioners who have been offered the opportunity to receive care instead of discipline. The PRN program is confidential and not subject to public scrutiny. THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - 1988 On or about March 12, 1988, Respondent was arrested as a result of a shooting incident involving his wife. Respondent was transported to South Miami Hospital due to his alleged cocaine abuse. Respondent was admitted to South Miami Hospital for substance abuse evaluation and treatment. During his evaluation and treatment at South Miami-Hospital, Respondent claimed a prior sedative overdose which required hospitalization at Mount Sinai Medical Center, allegedly due to his wife spiking his drink. During his evaluation and treatment, Respondent admitted to prior sporadic use of intra-nasal cocaine. Respondent also admitted to previously free basingcocaine, experiencing paranoia, and having other reactions from cocaine. Respondent refused a nasal examination. Detoxification was required and Respondent was diagnosed as possibly being addicted to cocaine. Respondent left South Miami Hospital against medical advice on March 15, 1988, two days after being admitted. Respondent was readmitted to South Miami Hospital on April 11, 1988. As a result of Dr. Iver's arrest in March 1988, and the recommendations of the doctors who evaluated him, the PRN was contacted. Respondent signed a Chemical DependencyContract with the PRN on or about May 23, 1988. On or about June 26, 1990, Respondent signed a Chemical Dependency Contract extending his monitoring for an additional three (3) years. On or about June 26, 1993, Respondent completed his PRN contract. AFTER THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - SEPTEMBER 1993 On September 21, 1993, the PRN received multiple telephone calls from Ms. Iver stating Respondent was using "free base" cocaine. She later retracted this story and stated that she had spiked his food. On that date, Mrs. Iver filed a domestic violence complaint (#93-33887) against Respondent with the Miami Beach Police Department. An assault rifle, and other gun-related items were taken into custody by the police. The offense report states that the attack by Respondent on his wife was a result of an argument regarding his "narcotic use." The PRN ordered Respondent to submit to a professional evaluation. On September 24, 1993, Respondent was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital for an inpatient evaluation. Dr. John Eustace was the evaluating physician. Dr. Eustace is board certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine and is the medical director of the addiction treatment program at Mount Sinai. During that evaluation, Respondent tested positive for oxazepam and cocaine. As a result of the inpatient evaluation, Dr. Eustace formed the opinion that Respondent was in relapse and recommended that Respondent sign a chemical dependency contract with PRN and that he refrain from practicing dentistry until he had entered a recovery life-style. Dr. Eustace used the term "relapse" without regard to whether the ingestion was voluntary or involuntary. Dr. Eustace was of the opinion that Respondent did not have an adequate recovery program in September 1993 because he was no longer involved in the PRN monitoring program, he was not attending or actively involved in the twelve step program for recovering addicts. During the evaluation, Respondent admitted responsibility for having an inadequate recovery program. Dr. Eustace's diagnosis on Respondent's discharge were as follows: Chemical dependency, inactive by history. Chemical dependency relapse behaviors, active. Obsessive compulsive traits. Adult child of alcoholic mother. Co-dependent behavior. Dr. Eustace's specific recommendations for Respondent pertinent to this proceeding, made at a time Respondent and his wife were contemplating divorce and before she entered a treatment program, were as follows: Reinstitute a program of total abstinence. Enter into a second PRN contract with the length of time to be determined by the PRN staff. Recruit a home group of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Recruit a sponsor for the purpose of working the twelve steps. Attend ninety meetings of AA or NA within the next ninety days. Detach from his office practice until his drug screen had cleared and he had entered a life- style of recovery. Detach emotionally and physically form his wife. Turn all further matters concerning his divorce over to his attorney. Obtain a personal physician to avoid self- medication. Begin a professional relationship with a therapist knowledgeable about the adult child of an alcoholic syndrome, knowledgeable about the disease of addiction, and knowledgeable about co-dependency treatment. PRN, based largely on Dr. Eustace's evaluation, recommended that Respondent enter into a new contract for monitoring and to continue treatment. Respondent refused to sign a new contract. On or about December 16, 1993, PRN forwarded a letter of complaint to Petitioner. Dr. Roger Goetz, Director of PRN, noted that Respondent had a urinalysis which contained metabolites of cocaine and benzodiazepines and that Respondent refused to voluntarily enter PRN. No further action was taken against the Respondent at that time. JULY AND AUGUST 1994 On or about July 7, 1994, PRN informed Petitioner it had information from a confidential informant that Respondent was free basing cocaine. The allegations stated that Respondent appeared to be "coked" up and failed to show up at his dental office. Dr. Goetz, Director of PRN, believed that intervention might be possible through a Miami affiliate. On July 7, 1994, Dr. Jules Trop, a doctor with the Miami affiliate of PRN, evaluated Respondent. Respondent denied any drug use but refused to submit a urine sample for drug testing. Dr. Trop observed Respondent's appearance to be disheveled and his speech pattern strained. Dr. Trop expressed the opinion that Respondent was in need of professional help. On or about July 26, 1994, the Agency was informed by PRN that Respondent refused intervention by PRN. As a result of the foregoing, an Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was ordered by the Agency on August 15, 1994. The evaluation pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was conducted a week after the Order was served upon Respondent. On August 23, 1994, Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, a psychiatrist, evaluated Respondent pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination. Dr. Steiner formed the opinion that Respondent presented characteristics of an addict in denial and was a potential risk to his patients. Dr. Steiner believed that objective monitoring was the only reliable way to ascertain the continued sobriety of Respondent. Respondent admitted to Dr. Steiner that he had used drugs in the past. He further admitted that he was an addict. JULY AND AUGUST 1995 On July 28, 1995, police officers from the City of Miami Beach Police Department were called to the Iver residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival the officers observed drug paraphernalia commonly associated with free basing cocaine in the bedroom shared by Dr. and Mrs. Iver. Respondent had been free basing cocaine prior to the arrival of the police. The officers confiscated the paraphernalia, but took no further action against Respondent that evening. On Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at approximately 8:38 p.m., police officers with the City of Miami Beach Police Department were dispatched to the Iver residence because Mrs. Lisa Iver called 911 stating that her husband Robert Iver had overdosed on cocaine. The 911 tape reveals a voice in the background making a loud verbal noise. According to the incident report prepared by the Miami Beach Police Department, Ms. Iver told the police officers who came to the Iver residence in response to the 911 call that the Respondent had gone crazy and was out of control due to free-basing cocaine. Accompanied by professionals from the City of Miami Beach Fire and Rescue Unit, the police officers entered the Iver residence and found Respondent naked and covered in blood. Additionally, the police discovered broken glass along with a cocaine pipe, propane torch, a glass beaker, and a can that had been altered to accommodate the smoking of crack cocaine. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker are items or devices commonly associated with free basing cocaine and are similar to the items removed from the house on July 28, 1995. Respondent indicated to the police officers at the scene that he had been free-basing cocaine and stated that he had taken a "hit" off the pipe and then thought he was being attacked by three men. According to the Miami Beach Police Department incident report, Mrs. Iver stated that Respondent had been smoking a lot of cocaine and then requested that she sodomize him with a sexual apparatus. Upon refusing, he began punching her in the chest and kicking her. He also pulled her across the floor by her hair. Ms. Iver had physical injuries that were consistent with the reported abuse by Respondent. Respondent was arrested for battery as a result of this incident. During this police investigation, Mrs. Iver was wearing a bandage on her chin and had two (2) broken teeth. Mrs. Iver stated that the observed injuries were a result of her husband, Respondent, punching her two days earlier, on Monday, July 31, 1995 after an argument regarding Respondent's drug abuse. A police photographer was called to the scene by Officer Hochstadt. Color photographs of Dr. and Mrs. Iver and of the scene were taken by the crime scene technician. The photographer's report listed the investigation as a possible attempted suicide. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker were taken into custody by the police. Respondent was transported by the Fire and Rescue Unit to Jackson Memorial Hospital emergency room for treatment. The States Attorney's Office charged Respondent with two counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia based on the events of August 2, 1995. On or about October 17, 1995, Robert Iver was found guilty of one count of use, possession, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia, and one count battery, after pleading nolo contendre to each charge. Adjudication was withheld and Iver was sentenced to twelve months probation for each charge to run concurrently. Among the terms of his probation was the requirement that he participate in a PRN approved recovery program. The aforementioned crimes relate to the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. 1/ THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDER - SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 On September 13, 1995, after reviewing the substance abuse history of Respondent and the foregoing police incident reports relating to drug usage in the middle of the workweek, Dr. Roger Goetz of PRN opined that Respondent is impaired and that his inability to practice dentistry poses an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. This opinion resulted in an Emergency Suspension Order being filed on September 15, 1995. Respondent has been prohibited from practicing dentistry since that date based on that order. MISCELLANEOUS FACTS BASED, IN PART, ON THE STIPULATION Respondent, by and through counsel, on approximately February 15, 1994, proffered to the Agency that Respondent had submitted himself to numerous drug screens and all were negative for any controlled or illegal substances. No actual laboratory reports were produced. From approximately January 1994 to June 1994, the Petitioner actively cooperated with Respondent's counsel to negotiate a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. Respondent has, at times, denied his addiction to cocaine after numerous past positive tests, treatment and counseling. Respondent's enthusiasm about prior recovery attempts tailed off as he became more involved with his dental practice. Lisa Iver testified that she and her husband, Robert Iver, Respondent, were getting along better since entering the Mount Sinai program in September 1995, because they were currently both clean and off drugs. THE SECOND PRN CONTRACT - OCTOBER 20, 1995 On September 22, 1995, Respondent went to Dr. Eustace for the purpose of establishing a program of personal recovery, marriage and family recovery, and reentry into the PRN. Mrs. Iver also entered a recovery program at Mt. Sinai. On October 20, 1995, Respondent signed a new contract with the PRN. While Respondent asserts that he "voluntarily" entered into this contract, that characterization is inaccurate since he entered this contract after the entry of the ESO. The order of probation entered in the criminal proceeding, also signed October 20, 1995, required his participation in such a program. By signing this PRN contract, Respondent agreed that he would have random unannounced urine or blood screens, that he would abstain from using all mood altering substances, medications, alcohol and others, that he would be monitored by a physician, that he would notify the PRN if he changed his address or employment; that he was to attend a self help group such as AA or NA seven times per week; that he would receive continuing care in group therapy one time per week; that he would attend a twelve step program for recovering professionals; that he would notify the PRN in the event of a relapse; that he would agree to withdraw from practice at the request of the PRN if any problem developed; and that his wife would also enter a recovery program. In his present capacity, Dr. Eustace provides evaluations for the PRN. In this respect he sees his role as that of a servant for the PRN. He renders reports and recommendations to the PRN. The PRN relies with confidence upon Dr. Eustace's opinions and reports. Since October 20, 1995, the date Respondent signed a PRN contract, Dr. Eustace has been his monitoring physician within the program. While in the program, Respondent has undergone psychological testing, personal interviews and has otherwise complied with the terms of his PRN contract. Dr. Eustace found no evidence of any chemical relapse, Respondent's behavior is one of compliance with the PRN and he is participating in a monitored group and in a peer professional group. Both Dr. and Mrs. Iver are progressing satisfactorily. It is important to the recovery life-style of Respondent that his wife continue progressing satisfactorily in her recovery program. One important difference in Respondent's life-style prior to his signing the October 20, 1995, PRN contract and subsequent thereto is that his wife is seeking professional help for her addiction. On October 31, 1995, Dr. Eustace wrote to Dr. Goetz advising him that it was his opinion that Respondent is adhering to a recovery life-style, is in full compliance with PRN directives, is not a danger to the public or himself and that he can safely practice dentistry. Dr. Goetz acquiesced in Dr. Eustace's opinion in testimony before the Board of Dentistry in November 1995. Both Dr. Eustace and Dr. Goetz testified that in their opinions, Respondent can practice dentistry with safety and without danger to the public health, safety or welfare as long as he is being monitored by the PRN. Dr. Goetz further testified that there has been a "decent" period of time over which to monitor Respondent since his emergency suspension in September. Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, who had evaluated Respondent in August 1994, expressed the opinion that Respondent was beyond hope. Dr. Steiner based this opinion on his one and one half hour conversation with Respondent in August 1994, on the testimony presented at the formal hearing, and on his observations of Respondent at a deposition and on the first day of the formal hearing. He did not review any medical records as he thought that they were not important. It was Dr. Steiner's opinion that Respondent was not safe to practice dentistry based primarily on the fact that Respondent had relapsed in 1993 and 1994 and therefore the PRN program was unsatisfactory for him. Dr. Steiner also questions Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. Dr. Steiner disagrees with Dr. Goetz and Dr. Eustace and states that they are emotionally involved with his recovery. This emotional involvement, in Dr. Steiner's opinion, prevents them from giving an objective medical opinion. However, Dr. Eustace clearly stated that all of his opinions related to Respondent were based upon the professional relationship and were medical opinions. Dr. Goetz stated that he had never met Respondent until the Board's November 1995 meeting and has relied, in most part, on the opinions expressed by Dr. Eustace. There was testimony as to the dangers of a recovering addict. An addict may be sober one day and under the influence of an addictive substance the next. It is possible that even after signing a PRN contract and being monitored, the Respondent may relapse. It is also possible that if the Respondent falls off the wagon or falls out of recovery, he could harm a patient before PRN is notified and appropriate action is taken. It is also true that no one, including PRN, Dr. Goetz, and Dr. Eustace, can guarantee that the Respondent will not use cocaine, and no one can guarantee that Respondent is able to practice dentistry with reasonable skill and safety. The greater weight of the evidence established, however, that the PRN was developed to assist recovering addicts, that the program is as good as any of its type, and that the program works as long as the impaired practitioner is adhering to the terms of the contract. The testimony of Dr. Eustace and of Dr. Goetz on January 10, 1996, that Respondent is presently safe to practice dentistry and that he poses no danger to the public's health, safety or welfare is more persuasive than that of Dr. Steiner that Respondent is beyond help. This conclusion is reached, in part, because of Dr. Eustace's expertise, his extensive work with the Respondent, and because Respondent was able to practice without incident while being monitored by the PRN. It is also concluded that Dr. Eustace is in a better position than Dr. Steiner to evaluate Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. The PRN program worked for Respondent in the past as he was able to safely practice between 1988 and 1993 when he was being monitored pursuant to a PRN contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 466.028(1)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00, which suspends his license to practice dentistry until September 14, 1996, which requires the PRN to attest at its Board meeting in August 1996 that Respondent has adhered to the terms of his PRN contract and that he remains capable of safely practicing dentistry, and which places his licensure on probation for as long as he practices dentistry in Florida. It is further recommended that the terms of his suspension and the terms of his probation require that he maintain a contract with the PRN at all times and that he strictly adhere to all terms of the PRN contract. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded for these two offenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February 1996.
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, the second issue for consideration is what penalty should be imposed for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 194525 by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent was employed by the FHP. For an unspecified time prior to July 11, 2011, Respondent was involved in a relationship with a woman named Tamarah Rasmussen. For some period, she shared his home with him. However, in the weeks or months preceding July 11, 2011, the couple’s relationship had deteriorated, and Respondent wanted it to end. He had, however, allowed her to remain in the home “as a friend.” On July 10, 2011, the couple had a fight, and Respondent left the house. On July 11, 2011, Respondent returned to the home after his work shift, and told Ms. Rasmussen that he wanted their relationship to end. Respondent told her he wanted to sleep in a separate bed, and took the mattress pad off of a bed in a bedroom downstairs and put it on a separate bed upstairs. Ms. Rasmussen reacted by taking the mattress pad off of the second bed and throwing it out the window. Respondent retrieved the mattress pad. Ms. Rasmussen then poured a container of water on the bed where Respondent intended to sleep. Respondent turned on the video function on his cellular phone and asked Ms. Rasmussen about her actions. She responded by telling him he was a fool and an idiot, and that he was crazy. In what can be gleaned from the tape, Respondent asked her to take her things and leave. Instead, Ms. Rasmussen approached Respondent trying to get his phone as he started to go upstairs, and began hitting him. He can be heard on the cell phone recording repeatedly asking her to stop. Ms. Rasmussen repeatedly answered “no,” and “this was good enough for you last night,” and the sound of her striking Respondent can be heard clearly. This altercation occurred as Respondent attempted to retreat up the stairs. At one point, Respondent exclaimed that Ms. Rasmussen had hit him in the face, and Ms. Rasmussen responds, “yeah, I did.” Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen end up in what appears to be a walk-in closet upstairs. At that point, Respondent told Ms. Rasmussen that she was “going down,” and that he would “arrest her myself.” Respondent appeared to be out of breath. Ms. Rasmussen responded by telling him repeatedly that she was not under arrest and he was not arresting her for anything. She told him several times to stop, and to “get off of her,” stating that she could not breathe. Eventually, she told him that he had won, and asked him to help her up. Ms. Rasmussen testified that Respondent dragged her up the stairs, hitting her head on the stairwell on the way up. She testified further that he slammed her against the wall, handcuffed her behind her back, and was sitting on top of her while he did so, and while she pleaded with him to stop. According to her, Respondent hit her several times during the time they were in the closet, and then dragged her back down the stairs by the chain on the handcuffs. She also stated that Respondent threatened to kill her, saying that if he did so he could dispose of her body in the pond on the property and no one would know unless they drained the pond. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that Ms. Rasmussen began hitting him around the head and neck, and he was retreating up the stairs in an effort to get away from her, telling her repeatedly to stop. He testified that once they reached the closet, he told her he was arresting her and placed her hands behind her back in order to handcuff her. When she told him he was not arresting her for anything, he warned her not to “make me Taze you,” and finished placing the handcuffs on her wrists, behind her back. Respondent denied sitting on Ms. Rasmussen, saying that he knelt on one knee with one foot flat on the floor, and with Ms. Rasmussen secured between his legs, as he learned in law enforcement training. While Ms. Rasmussen testified that he dragged her down the stairs of the house and then threw her down the outside steps, Respondent testified that he carried her down the stairs of the home so as not to injure her, but that she was resisting him. While the taped recording contained sounds indicating that Respondent was being hit by Ms. Rasmussen going up the stairs, the same is not true with respect to the descent. Ms. Rasmussen can be heard telling Respondent to stop, but there is no sound that can be attributed to her head banging against the wall or anyone being dragged down the stairs. Once they were both downstairs, Respondent called in a “1024” on his FHP radio, which means “officer in jeopardy, send help as soon as possible.” The consensus of those officers testifying was that this call is rarely used and is the equivalent of “calling the calvary,” because the officer needs help immediately. Both Rasmussen and Respondent exited the home once the 1024 call was placed. Rasmussen testified at hearing that Respondent offered to take the handcuffs off of her and she refused the offer, saying that she wanted the responding officers to “see me exactly this way.” She got in his truck, which was parked near his locked law enforcement vehicle, and shut the door to get out of the rain. Law enforcement responding to the 1024 call were Marcus Bailey, an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff’s Office; FHP Major Eddie Johnson; and Lieutenant Davis Ward of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. Their arrival at the home was approximately twelve minutes from the call being received by the FHP dispatcher. The Bay County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation of the matter, and because a law enforcement officer was involved, the investigation was conducted by supervisors. As a result of the incident, Respondent was placed on administrative duty on July 11, 2012, and terminated from the FHP July 16, 2012. The officers who responded all saw the video of the cell phone recording, which was also played several times during the course of the hearing. While, curiously, two of the three refer to Respondent as “taunting” Ms. Rasmussen at the beginning of the video, the video does not display or record anything that the undersigned could describe as taunting. It portrayed Respondent expressing dismay at Ms. Rasmussen’s behavior; Respondent requesting that she get her things and leave; Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response; the sounds of Ms. Rasmussen hitting Respondent; Responding placing her under arrest and reciting her rights; and Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response and cries for help and for Respondent to let her go. Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Ronnie Baker, testified that Respondent was a great employee who went “above and beyond,” and who prior to this incident (which Sergeant Baker did not witness), had no complaints against him. Sergeant Baker, among others, testified that Ms. Rasmussen had a reputation for untruthfulness. The undersigned reviewed the tape several times. It is of limited assistance in deciphering what is, in reality, an event where the only witnesses are the participants, Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen. However, after listening to the tape and observing the demeanor of witnesses (both at hearing and in the tape), Ms. Rasmussen’s account of the incident is simply not credible. The sounds on the tape clearly support the testimony that Ms. Rasmussen was hitting Respondent repeatedly as they went up the stairs. There are no corresponding sounds to support her contention that he slammed her head into the wall or dragged her down the stairs. Moreover, the pictures of Ms. Rasmussen do not clearly depict bruising or swelling consistent with her description of the incident. There are slight red marks on Ms. Rasmussen’s wrists, but they do not provide clear and convincing evidence that he dragged her anywhere, much less down the stairs. The marks on her arms are just as likely to indicate her resisting his efforts to carry her down the stairs. Moreover, her claim that he threatened to kill her and dispose of her body in the pond on the property is totally inconsistent with Respondent’s actions in placing a 1024 request for assistance, and waiting at the front of the property for assistance to arrive. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with use of excessive force by slamming Ms. Rasmussen’s head and/or placing handcuffs on the victim tightly and/or dragging her down the stairs while handcuffed. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent slammed Ms. Rasmussen’s head against anything; that he put the handcuffs on her too tightly; or that he dragged her down the stairs while handcuffed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Spaziante (Address of record) Sandra Renee Coulter, Esquire Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Charles P. Williams, was a counselor at South Miami Heights Elementary School (SMHES) in Miami, Florida. He was under a continuing contract with petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). Respondent has been a teacher or counselor in the school system since 1967. On August 19, 1987 the Board voted to dismiss Williams without pay effective that date for "immorality and misconduct in office." The action stemmed from respondent being arrested in May, 1987 and charged with possession of cocaine, a felony. A Notice of Specific Charges was later issued on November 30, 1987 setting forth the charges in greater detail. On the evening of Friday, May 22, 1987 the City of Miami Police Department assigned a special task force unit known as the Street Narcotics Unit (SNU) to conduct a reverse sting operation in an area of the city where narcotics were being sold. In such an operation, the police officers became the sellers of drugs and then arrested their customers. On this day, SNU selected the area around 15th Avenue and 68th Street, a "known narcotic area" of the city. The officers took over the complete block and "moved out" all known sellers and lookouts. The officers wore baggy street clothes and were given cocaine rock, powder cocaine and marijuana to sell to buyers. They also carried weapons and a badge, both hidden. One officer was Sharon Troy who was assigned the job of "selling" drugs on the east side of 15th Avenue and 68th Street. Officer Troy is an experienced officer who has participated in some ten to fifteen sting operations and has made approximately 150 to 200 arrests. Around 10:58 p.m. that evening, Officer Troy was approached by respondent who happened to be in the neighborhood. Williams asked Troy where he could find some narcotics. She replied, "Well, what do you want?" Williams said "cocaine." When offered a choice between rock and powder cocaine, Williams chose "rock." Officer Troy then sold him two "rocks" for $20 cash. After the exchange of money and drugs took place, Officer Troy identified herself as a police officer and arrested Williams. She immediately placed the $20 cash and the two rocks in an empty pocket. Williams was escorted by Officer Troy and another officer to a nearby apartment complex that had been converted into a temporary holding area. At the holding area, Officer Troy elicited certain information from Williams and filled out an arrest affidavit received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4. The money and drugs were placed in an envelope, the envelope was sealed with tape, and Officer Troy placed her name, the contents and the arrestee's name on the outside of the envelope. The envelope was then placed in an evidence box which was carried to the property unit of the Police Department. Williams was transported from the holding area to the Metro-Dade jail where he was fingerprinted, photographed and placed in a small cell with approximately twenty to thirty other arrestees. He remained there until Monday morning. After the evidence was taken to the property unit, Officer Troy retrieved the envelope, broke the seal and placed the money and drugs into two separate envelopes. The envelopes were resealed with evidence tape and given to the property specialist who placed them in the vault. The sealed envelope with the drug was not broken until the contraband was hand- delivered to the Metro- Dade laboratory on September 9, 1987. There, a Metro-Dade criminalist tested the substance and determined the rocks contained 0.2 grams of cocaine, a controlled substance. The envelope was resealed and remained in that posture until final hearing. The seal on the money bag was not broken until the bag was opened in the undersigned's presence at final hearing. Therefore, it is found that the chain of custody was not broken between the time of the arrest and the submission into evidence of the money and drugs. A few days after respondent's arrest, a Metro-Dade social worker heard a radio news report on a Spanish radio station, WQBA, concerning the arrest of an unnamed SMHES counselor. At SMHES, a few secretaries made comments about respondent's arrest and most of the faculty asked the principal about the matter. There was no television or newspaper commentary on the arrest nor was there any indication that students, parents or other community members were aware of the same. According to Dr. D. Patrick Gray, who has been accepted as an expert in the area of ethics and professional standards for educators, respondent's effectiveness as a counselor and employee of the Board has been seriously impaired by virtue of his arrest for possession of cocaine. This opinion was echoed by the school principal. It was also Dr. Gray's opinion that respondent has violated the standards of ethical conduct of the teaching profession. More specifically, Dr. Gray opined that Williams failed to maintain the respect and confidence of his colleagues, students, parents and other community members. Both at hearing and at a conference for the record, respondent denied that he purchased the drugs. Instead, he maintained that he was in the neighborhood that evening searching for a funeral home to ascertain the time of a family friend's funeral to be held on Saturday, May 23. According to Williams, Officer Troy approached him and, after asking what he was doing, without any cause handcuffed and arrested him for purchasing cocaine. Although there are two funeral homes within a few blocks of where Williams was arrested, his story is not deemed to be credible and is accordingly discredited. Williams received a satisfactory evaluation at SMHES for school year 1986-87. He was the school's only full-time counselor and worked with troubled students. Ironically, he was in charge of the school's "say no to drugs" program and the youth crime watch" program. His principal described him as having done a good job at school and characterized his work as "very satisfactory." There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary action against the licensee. Williams stated he loves the teaching profession and desires to continue teaching. He has successfully completed a court imposed "Self-help Program" which required, among other things, that respondent submit himself to a weekly test for drugs. After completion of the program, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and authorized the expunction and sealing of respondent's criminal record. Williams has taught for some twenty years, and during his recent suspension, has taken additional college course work to sharpen his education skills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of immorality and that he be suspended from his position for two years, said suspension to be retroactive to August 19, 1987. The remaining charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1988.
