Findings Of Fact Question 13 on Petitioner's application for an unarmed guard license reads as follows: "Have you ever been arrested". In response thereto, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and, in accordance with the instructions to list all arrests, stated that he had been arrested for breaking and entering in 1965, at which time he served one year in prison; and that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1969, at which time he was sentenced to five to ten years in prison. No other arrests were listed. Petitioner's application was signed under oath and recited that all information contained in the application was true and correct. Petitioner is presently on probation from his armed robbery conviction, and his probationary period will not expire until March 4, 1981. His civil rights have not been restored from that conviction, although he intends to apply for restoration upon completion of his parole period. At the time that the Petitioner's employer was assisting him in completing his application, Petitioner indicated to Mr. Martin that Petitioner had been arrested and convicted of offenses in addition to those revealed on his application. Those omitted arrests and/or convictions include fighting and unlawful assembly in 1962; assault with a knife in 1964; buying, receiving and concealing stolen property in 1966; assault and battery in 1968; and prison breach in 1974. Although Petitioner's parole officer believes he is being rehabilitated, Ms. Barrett, in the two and one-half years she has known Petitioner, only speaks to him on the telephone once a month and sees him every two months. More importantly, Ms. Barrett is unable to state that she would hire Petitioner as a security guard at her home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John C. Henderson 1771 North East 176th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Firearm License, committed the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of Class "D" Security Officer License D92-01223 and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License G96-01346. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an armed security guard for Wells Fargo Security in Palm Beach County, Florida. His assigned post was at the Community Savings Bank (the Bank) in Riviera Beach, Florida. There was typically only one guard assigned to that post. The Bank is located in a high crime area of Riviera Beach. Respondent was the only guard assigned to the Bank on June 5, 1996. Respondent was on duty at the Bank from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., five days a week. He was to provide security for all five floors of the main bank building, an adjacent single story building that contained supplies, and the parking areas. His duties included escorting Bank personnel and customers between the parking areas and the Bank, and he was required to carry a radio so that Bank personnel could contact him when someone needed an escort. The radio he carried had a radius of 1.5 miles. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Michael Ross was employed by Wells Fargo and had direct supervisory authority over the Respondent. Mr. Ross instructed Respondent that he could leave the Bank premises only to pick up a sandwich. He was instructed to take his breaks and eat his lunch on Bank premises. On June 5, 1996, Respondent was on duty at the Bank. At approximately 11:00 a.m. that day, Mr. Ross spoke with Sheila Owens, the bank's operation manager, in an effort to locate the Respondent. Mr. Ross wanted to discuss with the Respondent certain changes in the work schedule. Ms. Owens advised Mr. Ross that she would attempt to locate Respondent and that she would call him back. A few minutes later, Ms. Owens called Mr. Ross and told him that she could not locate Respondent. Mr. Ross became concerned that the post was unattended. Because the Bank is in a high crime area, he was also concerned that the Respondent may have become the victim of an act of violence. Mr. Ross drove to the Bank, arriving at approximately 12:30 p.m. on June 5, 1996. He and Ms. Owens searched the entire Bank premises. Mr. Ross attempted to contact Respondent by radio and by Respondent's personal beeper number. The page Mr. Ross left for Respondent was not returned. Mr. Ross tried to locate the Respondent for approximately two hours. He called the Riviera Police Department because he feared for Respondent's safety. Two Riviera Police Department cars arrived at the scene at approximately 2:30 p.m. on June 5, 1996. About the time the police arrived, Mr. Ross saw Respondent walking through the Bank's parking lot. Respondent told Mr. Ross that he had been at a beeper store that was approximately 200 yards from the Bank. That explanation is not credible because Respondent could have been contacted by radio if he had been within a mile and a half of the Bank. Respondent was absent from his post without credible explanation for at least two hours on June 5, 1996. Wells Fargo thereafter lost the security contract it had with the Bank.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s Class “D” Security License be revoked. It is further recommended that no action be taken against Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of October, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. James B. Brown 1031 West 1st Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issues are whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a felony, whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether Tunstall falsified his application.
Findings Of Fact Leonard P. Tunstall made application for licensure as an unarmed and armed security guard to the Department of State. His application was received by the Department in February of 1981. The application indicates it was signed by Tunstall on October 29, 1980. Question #13 on the application was answered "no," as indicated by a check mark. When he originally received the application, Tunstall filled it out up to Question #13. He had not completed that question because he lacked all the data. Subsequently, Albert Simmons, his supervisor, stopped by Tunstall's residence and picked up the application, which Simmons completed with assistance from Tunstall's girlfriend. Neither Simmons nor Tunstall's girl friend had knowledge of Tunstall's record. Subsequently, Tunstall advised Simmons about his arrests, and Simmons told him that his arrests would not disqualify him. Tunstall signed the application with the understanding that his arrests would be disclosed. However, Simmons was subsequently fired, and Tunstall's application was found by Simmons' successor who submitted it with the arrests undisclosed. Tunstall's application, Respondent's Exhibit 1, indicates that answers to Questions #1 through #12 were hand-written, Question #13 was answered by placing a check mark in the "no" block, and answers to Questions #14 through #17 were type-written. Simmons was the notary who authenticated Tunstall's signature. Tunstall further testified that he began work for Florida Merchant Police in June of 1979, as a uniformed rail crossing guard. In approximately January of 1980, he was assigned to work at an unarmed security guard post. It was after this that he was given an application for licensure by the company. Tunstall's FBI records reveal the following arrests and convictions: 1939 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1940 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1947 - Burglary and attempted larceny, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 1 to 2 years - served 8 months) 1958 - Assault and battery, NJ (Fined) 1958 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1960 - Burglary, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 2 to 3 years) 1975 - Keeping a house of ill fame, FL (Dismissed) Tunstall testified that his civil rights had been restored in New Jersey, but he could not introduce any documentation to support his testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that Leonard Tunstall's application for licensure as an armed guard be denied, and recommends that Tunstall's application for licensure as an unarmed guard be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Tunstall Suite 996 12555 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33181 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., has held a Class "s" security guard agency license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Rollins Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Linda Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Linda and Rollins Donald have been the principal owners, corporate officers, and directors of Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., and as such are responsible for the control and operation of the agency. There is no licensed manager for the agency. At all times material hereto, Raymond Curtis Foxwood was an employee of North Dade Security, Ltd. Foxwood has never been licensed as a firearms instructor. An applicant for a statewide gun permit, also known as a Class "G" armed guard license, must submit to Petitioner an application for such license. The application form contains a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency which verifies that the applicant has received the statutorily-required firearms training by a licensed firarms instructor prior to the filing of that application for licensure.- on October 7, 1985, Foxwood submitted to Petitioner on behalf of North Dade Security, Ltd., approximately 20 applications for licensure as unarmed and armed guards. Although Foxwood was advised at that time by one of Petitioner's employees that the applications could not be processed due to the absence of licensure fees and due to deficiencies in completeness, the applicants were sent by North Dade Security to Petitioner's office to pick up their temporary licenses on the morning of October 8. When questioned about their applications, some of the applicants advised Petitioner's employee that they had received no firearms training, although their applications certified that they had. After the applicants were refused temporary licenses by Petitioner, North Dade Security sent the applicants to a gun range where Foxwood administered some firearms training for approximately four hours. Neither Rollins Donald nor Linda Donald was present at that training session. As of October 1985, several other persons employed by North Dade Security as armed guards had received no firearms training in conjunction with that employment. Most of the Certificates of Firearms Proficiency a contained within the applications of those latter employees and of the October 7 applicants were signed by Rollins Donald and by Linda Donald. 11. The numerous applications submitted by North Dadee La Security, Ltd., on October 7, 1985 was occasioned by a large contract entered into by North Dade Security, Ltd. requiring the immediate employment of a large number of armed guards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents North Dade Security, Ltd., Rollins Donald and Linda Donald guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and revoking the Class "B.' license of North Dade Security, Ltd., and further revoking the Class "K" firearms instructor licenses of Respondents Rollins Donald and Linda Donald. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee' Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Room LL-10 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0250 Jackie L. Gabe, Esquire Charles C. Mays, Esquire McCRARY & VALENTINE Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The testimony at the final hearing in this cause was preserved by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by use of the court reporter. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Respondents determined that they would provide a transcript of proceedings for use by the undersigned and would therefore have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded thirty (30) days from the filing of that transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23, 1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties hereto subsequently agreed that that transcript was incomplete, and a complete transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1986. Accordingly, the parties' proposed recommended orders became due to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than October 22, 1986. Respondents filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986. However, Petitioner did. not file its proposed recommended order until October 23, 1986. On October 24, 1986, Petitioner also filed what it considered to be an uncertified "corrected transcript. A series of correspondence and conference calls then ensued due to the Respondents' inability to accept the "corrected~ transcript, and the parties were afforded additional time in which to resolve their differences regarding the September 22, 1986 transcript, which was determined by the undersigned to be the official transcript of this proceeding. By correspondence from Petitioner's substituted attorney filed on February 2, 1987, Petitioner withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to the use of the official transcript filed on September 22, 1986. Since Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed late and no extension of time for the filing of that proposed recommended order was requested or granted, no rulings are made herein on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Although Respondents' proposed recommended order was timely filed, only Respondent's finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Respondents' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony of each witness. ================================================================= FIRST DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NORTH DADE SECURITY LTD. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES CORPORATION, LINDA H. TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DONALD and ROLLINS DONALD, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 97-1350 DOAH CASE NO. 85-4192 Vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 1, 1988. An appeal from an order of the Department of State. Michael J. Cherniga, of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard, C Tallahassee, for appellants. R. Timothy Jansen, Assistant General Counsel, Department of State, Tallahassee, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judgee. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of State (Department) approving and adopting the hearing officer's recommended order holding that the firearms instructor licenses of the individual appellants should be revoked and that the security agency license of the corporate appellant should be revoked. We reverse and remand. The appellants raise, inter alia, the following two questions: (1) Whether the Department's failure to accurately and completely preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of appellants' due process rights, and (2) whether the Department's failure to preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing has materially prejudiced the appellants' rights to judicial review of this cause. At the final hearing in this case the Department attempted to preserve the testimony presented by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by the use of a court reporter. The Department notified appellants prior to the final hearing that it intended to preserve the hearing testimony in this manner, and that appellants would be responsible for furnishing any transcript they might need for review of the hearing officer's findings. Appellants were advised they were free to either hire a court reporter to produce such transcript or that they could use the Department's tapes t make their own transcript. Appellants neither hired a court reporter nor objected to the Department's announcement that it would tape record the proceedings. Unfortunately, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and numerous substantial and material portions of the testimony taken at the hearing were not transcribable because they were not recorded at all, or because the tapes were inaudible or unintelligible. The final hearing was concluded February 18, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants determined that they would provide a transcript of the proceedings for use by the parties and would have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded 30 days from the filing of the transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23,1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) but the parties subsequently agreed that the transcript was incomplete. An allegedly complete transcript was filed with DOAH on September 22, 1986, and the parties' proposed recommended orders were due to be filed no later than October 22, 1986. Appellants filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986 and the Department filed its recommended order October 23, 1986 together with what it labeled a "corrected" transcript. The appellants refused to accept the "corrected" transcript and the parties were afforded additional time to resolve their differences regarding the September 22 transcript. Ultimately, the transcript filed September 22 was determined by the hearing officer to be the official transcript of the final hearing. On February 2, 1987, the Department withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to use the transcript filed September 22, 1986. The hearing officer's recommended order was entered February 25, 1987, and the final order of the agency was entered September 23, 1987, more than one and one-half years after the date of the final hearing. Section 120.57(1)(b)6, Fla. Stat. (1985) provides in part: The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost. The statute requires agencies to accurately and completely preserve all testimony in §120.57(1) proceedings held before them, and this mandatory duty cannot be avoided or escaped by simply advising an opposing party that the agency proposes to preserve the testimony by tape recording and that the opposing party has the right to hire a court reporter. The appellants were entitled to rely upon the Department to accurately and completely preserve the testimony taken at the final hearing, yet review of the transcript herein reveals that the Department failed to perform its duty. There are numerous obvious omissions of substantial and material portions of the testimony received, and the answers to many of the questions posed are incomplete or inaudible. Because of the condition of the record the appellants are unable to obtain any meaningful review of the proceedings. Booker Creek Preservation. Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) are not applicable, as these cases involved a factual situation where the appellant failed to furnish a written transcript although one could have and should have been obtained by the appellant. In this case the appellants made every effort to obtain a complete and accurate written transcript of the testimony but were unable to do so through no fault of their own. As the parties were unable to agree on a statement of the evidence, the appellants are entitled to a hearing de novo. The order of the Department is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo on the petition. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ ., CONCUR.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent entered a store, not in connection with his duties as a security guard, while openly wearing a firearm, in violation of Sections 493.315(2) and (3) and 493.319(1)(p), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent held the following licenses: Class "B" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman Agency license number B-88-00055; Class "MB"' Watchman, Guard or Patrolman Agency Manager license number MB-88-00083; Class "D" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman license number D-89-01736; and Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit number G-89-00216. In September, 1989, Respondent provided security services to about six of the approximately 41 merchants located at a small "L"-shaped strip mall located on Saxon Boulevard in Orange City, Florida. These services were provided pursuant to contracts between the individual merchants and Respondent. The security services supplied by Respondent required him to patrol common areas, such as sidewalks and parking areas. Entrances to all of the stores faced the unenclosed mall's parking lot. One of the merchants at the strip mall with whom Respondent had no contract was Lauri Black, who owned and operated a store known as "Florida Scene." This store, which opened for business on or shortly after September 22, 1989, is located at the end of a long line of stores and faces directly into the parking lot serving all of the stores. The closest store that Respondent protects is relatively close to Florida Scene, about five stores away. Ms. Black also operated a similar store in nearby Deland. Respondent had previously visited her to solicit security business. Based on prior conversations, Respondent reasonably believed that he might successfully obtain the business for the new store in Orange City. On Monday, September 19, 1989, at about 3:25 p.m., Respondent, who had just gone on duty, entered Ms. Black's store for the purpose of soliciting security business. At the time, he was in his normal security guard uniform and was wearing a handgun, which remained holstered at all relevant times. Ms. Black did not ask Respondent to leave or to remove his gun. In fact, she was not intimidated by the fact that he was armed. However, upon his entrance into her store, Ms. Black, without warning or prior objection, excused herself and contacted the police. At the hearing, Ms. Black testified that she had been "roped into this." "This" apparently refers to her participation that day in an ongoing dispute between Respondent, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the management and certain mall merchants that is not otherwise relevant to the present case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings: adopted. rejected as irrelevant. adopted except that Florida Scene was not open for business until after September 22, 1989. adopted in substance. adopted. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1-3. adopted. adopted in substance. adopted in substance. adopted as to Respondent being on duty. Whether he was in proper performance of his duties is rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 T. Hulen Ray, Attorney 118 WeSt. New York Ave. Deland, FL 32720
Findings Of Fact In 1976 the Petitioner was arrested and charged with the crime Aggravated Assault. No formal charges were filed, and he was neither tried nor convicted of the charges. The Petitioner failed to reflect this arrest in his application for license. The fact of the arrest would not constitute grounds for denying the Petitioner's application for an unarmed guard license. His failure to report it was apparently due to confusion on his own part. The evidence would not support a conclusion that the failure was willful.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner seeks licensure as both an armed and an unarmed security guard ("F" and "G" licenses). In support of his applications he submitted the required health certificate for a "Statewide Gun Permit" as well as his "Certificate of Firearms Proficiency" and the required affidavit attesting to his character and to his experience as a security guard. A "Temporary Gun License," No. 18279, was issued to the Petitioner on August 25, 1980. On October 27, 1980, the Respondent ultimately, by letter of that date, denied his application for licensure and informed him of his right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely elected to exercise that right and to adduce evidence supportive of his petition. The grounds for the denial were respectively that there was a substantial connection between an alleged lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner and the business for which he sought the license and that he fraudulently or willfully misrepresented his status in answering questions on the applications specifically the question regarding his prior arrest record. Additionally, the application was denied on the grounds that the Petitioner had in the past been found guilty of a crime which directly related to the business for which he seeks the license. The Petitioner, in answering the question regarding past arrests, admitted that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1959. The Petitioner did not complete the answer regarding the disposition of that arrest, but candidly admitted at the hearing that he was confined in the state prison at Raiford, Florida for five years after being convicted of armed robbery and also candidly admitted a record for various other petty offenses in 1941, 1945 and 1946, none of which three incidents involved a sentence of longer than three months. On December 23, 1947, in Bartow, Polk County, Florida he was sentenced to three years in the state prison at Raiford for grand larceny. He was discharged from confinement on May 4, 1950. The uncontroverted testimony of the Petitioner at the hearing established that, although he was convicted and sentenced for grand larceny, the articles which he was convicted of stealing were: a watermelon, a cinnamon roll and a can of sardines. The Petitioner's only other conviction and confinement occurred in 1959 when he was convicted for armed robbery. The Petitioner served out this sentence and was discharged and has had no altercations with the law since that time. Give the basis upon which the application was denied, some elaboration of the circumstances surrounding that armed robbery conviction are appropriate. The Petitioner's stepson was employed by a trucking company as a driver and periodically made collections of large amounts of cash from freight customers of the truck line. Due to their dire financial circumstances at the time the Petitioner, his stepson, and the Petitioner's wife apparently entered into an arrangement whereby the stepson would alert them of the day and time on which he would be making collections of large amounts of cash so that the trio could convert the company receipts to their own use. According to the Petitioner's uncontroverted testimony, the Petitioner, armed with a lead pipe instead of a gun, as the charge had indicated, in conspiracy with his stepson and wife staged an apparent robbery to cover the actual theft of the company's funds. In any event, the trio were apprehended and in the subsequent negotiations or the trial, the Petitioner elected to assume sole responsibility for the "robbery" in order to protect the freedom and record of his wife and stepson. Consequently, the Petitioner was sentenced to five years for armed robbery and served out his sentence. The Petitioner thus established with credible, uncontroverted testimony that this armed robbery conviction actually did not stem from the forceable taking of the property of another with a firearm, but rather was a staged, "phony" robbery to cover a simple theft of the funds in question. The Hearing Officer is impressed with the obvious candor and forthrightness of the Petitioner in describing the events surrounding this and his other miscreant conduct in his distant past and with his continued remorse at its having occurred. Since his release from the state penitentiary in 1962, Mr. Walker has had no legal difficulties whatever. Per the last fifteen years or so he has been employed as a security guard for various security agencies in the Dade County area, primarily as an unarmed security guard, but serving at least one stint for an agency as an armed security guard, apparently by local authority. The Petitioner presented evidence at the hearing of a previously valid unarmed security guard license he has held, as well as the temporary gun license issued August 28, 1980. He also presented evidence in the form of identification cards and a badge establishing his employment as a security guard in the past, pursuant to Chapter 493, by a number of private security firms in the Dade County area. He has worked in a number of large department stores and warehouses wherein valuable merchandise was stored or kept and has never been involved in any incident involving theft of such goods. Escambia County recently saw fit to employ him temporarily as a security guard at Pensacola High School. He has had good working relationships with law enforcement authorities in his capacity as a security guard both in Dade and Escambia Counties and offered to bring to the hearing members of law enforcement agencies and the clergy in both counties to attest to his good conduct since his release from prison, nineteen years ago. The Petitioner freely acknowledged at the hearing that his answer to Question 13 on his applications did not disclose his entire arrest record, however, he states that he does not write well and had the secretary at the security firm where he was working at the time, in Dade County, fill out the applications for him. He maintains that he told the secretary all information about his criminal record and assumed that she had put it down, but signed the application hurriedly because he had to report for work and signed it as he was leaving the firm's office. He repeatedly demonstrated at the hearing that he had nothing to hide regarding his criminal record and was genuinely remorseful for its existence. He described in detail the various convictions and stipulated to the evidence of his criminal record which the Respondent offered. The Petitioner also demonstrated that during those times when he has worked as an armed security guard, primarily in Dade County, he has never had to use or display his gun to anyone and only wishes the use of a gun now for his own protection, since in his experience at his last job with the Ford Detective Agency in Dade County, the position became too dangerous for a security guard to occupy without having a firearm for protection. The Petitioner is now in his sixties and due to a slight heart condition is living entirely on Social Security disability income. He expressed the desire to go hack into security guard work in order to provide enough income to support himself, his wife and his young grandson whom he is helping to rear and who accompanied him to the hearing. He obviously has a keen desire to be able to support himself and his family without, as he put it, having to "live on the County" or the public treasury. He feels that security guard work is a duty he can readily fulfill despite his age since lie is of otherwise robust health, has substantial experience as a security guard, and the job is not a strenuous one. He has job offers with the St. Regis Paper Company and the Exxon Oil Company as well as the local newspaper. He is now working part-time collecting money for the local newspaper which is a dangerous job in his view in that he sometimes carries large amounts of cash in "high crime areas" of the county. He feels that he needs the right to possess a firearm for his own protection. Since his release from prison Mr. Walker has obviously undergone a profound change in his way of life away from repetitive confrontations with the law. He has become an exemplary family man, a church man and a Mason. He does not use alcohol or drugs whatever. He demonstrates significant independence and responsibility of character at his rather advanced age in wanting to obtain another job to support is family, rather than relying on relatives or the public treasury for subsistence.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the arguments of the parties it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, granting the Petitioner's application for licensure, both as an armed and an unarmed security guard. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Room 1801, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Curley Walker Post Office Box 619 Century, Florida 32535
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Judge L. Williams, age 58, has been a resident of Florida for approximately 40 years, except for employment related intervals. He has a high school education, received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy after more than three years of service, was employed in the merchant marine service for approximately 11 years, and retired from Exxon Company, U.S.A., after almost 20 years. Since the Petitioner retired in 1975, he has held various jobs in Jacksonville. Some of his employers have been Southland Corporation (7-11 Stores), Oxford Security, and Pinkertons of Florida. The Petitioner admits having an arrest record going back to the year 1949, and continuing to June of 1979, for various charges, but he has never been convicted of a felony. He has never been arrested for an offense involving the use of a firearm, or for a crime relating to property such as burglary or larceny, and he has never lost his civil rights. However, the Petitioner has had a sexual problem. In 1951 be was arrested in Los Angeles, California, for sex perversion involving a minor, and convicted on his guilty plea. He served 30 days, after which his mother convinced him to be hospitalized to treat his sexual problem. Nevertheless, in 1954 the Petitioner was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of sodomy, and paid a fine. Again, in 1956, the Petitioner was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, on a charge of molesting minors, and convicted. He served 30 days. Finally the Petitioner's record of sex related offenses concluded in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1971 when he was arrested on a charge of soliciting for immoral purposes. He posted bond which was forfeited when he failed to appear for trial. The Petitioner also has had a problem with alcohol, stemming back to 1949 when he was arrested for driving while intoxicated in San Francisco, California. Other alcohol related offenses occurred in 1956 in Las Vegas, and in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1958, 1962, 1968, and as recently as 1979 when he was arrested on a driving while intoxicated charge. The Petitioner admits to having been affected by a social problem which he describes as drinking too much. However, he asserts that this problem, as well as his former sexual problem, are not present in his life now. The Division of Licensing has issued a Class D Unarmed Security Guard License to the Petitioner, which permits him to secure employment as an unarmed guard. The Petitioner, however, contends that even with the problems be has had in the past, and in spite of his arrest record, there is nothing in his background to demonstrate violence, and he is completely rehabilitated now from both sexual and alcohol problems. Without a gun permit, he contends that employment as a security guard is difficult to find, hard to keep, and pays less than an armed guard., The only evidence presented by the Petitioner was his own self-serving testimony, and two letters relating to his character. This is insufficient and unconvincing proof of rehabilitation from his admitted problems related to sex and alcohol, in view of the recentness of the recurrence of these problems. The charge in 1971 in Norfolk is 10 years old, but some 15 years elapsed between the sex related arrest in 1956 and the 1971 occurrence. The 1979 arrest for driving while intoxicated is only 2 years old. The totality of the evidence does not support the Petitioner's uncorroborated assertion that he is now fully rehabilitated, and does not support a finding that the Petitioner is of good moral character, or that he is fit to be licensed to carry a firearm.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Judge L. Williams for a Class G security Guard License, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 13th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen O. Parker, Esquire 607 Florida Theatre Building 129 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 1501 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
