The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 15, 1982, and issued certificate number 02-29286. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Miami Police Department from the time he went into the academy in 1981 through 1988. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was employed as a reserve police officer with the City of Virginia Gardens, a small municipality located in Dade County, Florida. On May 31, 1985, a drug rip-off occurred in Miami, Florida, at Nuta's Boat Yard. Approximately 187 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 12, 1985, a second drug rip-off occurred in Miami at the Tamiami Marina. Between 400-450 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 28, 1985, a third drug rip-off occurred in Miami at Jones Boat yard. Approximately 450 kilos of cocaine were taken. Several City of Miami police officers were involved in these three drug rip-offs and the subsequent resale of the stolen cocaine. The subsequent prosecution of these cases became known as the "Miami River Cops Cases". Respondent Menocal did not participate in any of these three drug rip-offs and he has not been prosecuted criminally. Rudolfo Arias and Carlos Pedrera are former City of Miami police officers who were involved in the Miami River Cops Cases and were, at the time of the formal hearing, incarcerated in the federal prison system and had been placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Mr. Pedrera was called as a witness, but he was withdrawn as a witness before he gave any substantive testimony because he refused to testify. Mr. Arias had agreed as part of his plea agreement to implicate and to testify against other law enforcement officers in exchange for substantial benefits to him. Although Mr. Arias received no direct benefit for his testimony in this proceeding, his plea agreement required that he testify against those he had implicated. Mr. Pedrera's refusal to testify was in spite of a plea agreement similar to that of Mr. Arias. Mr. Arias was an officer with the City of Miami Police Department in 1985 and he knew Respondent as a fellow officer and as a friend. The gravamen of the complaint brought against Respondent is based on accusations made by Mr. Arias These accusations are buttressed by the hearsay testimony of Mr. Pedrera, but of no other testimony or evidence. The following is Mr. Arias's version of the pertinent events of July 12, 1985. According to Mr. Arias, he had gone to Mr. Pedrera's house to pick up Mr. Pedrera as part of their planned participation in the Tamiami Marina drug rip-off. Mr. Arias received a call from Respondent requesting him to come by Respondent's house to discuss a matter of importance. Mr. Arias and Mr. Pedrera went to Respondent's house before they went to the meeting place for the Tamiami Marina drug rip-off. When they arrived at Respondent's house, another person was present in the house, but the identity of this person was unknown to Arias or Pedrera. Mr. Arias contends that he and Pedrera were invited into Respondent's bedroom and shown a package shaped like a brick and wrapped in plastic which Respondent represented to be a kilo of cocaine. Neither Respondent, Mr. Arias, or Mr. Pedrera opened the package or attempted to test or weigh its contents. Mr. Arias contends that Respondent asked for Mr. Arias' assistance in selling the cocaine. Mr. Arias contends that Respondent wanted $25,000 for the sale, but that Respondent would give him the difference between the sales price and $25,000. Mr. Arias testified that when he told Respondent he would be unable to help sell the cocaine, Respondent told him that Oswaldo Cuello and Jose Benitez were coming to his house to discuss selling the cocaine. Mr. Cuello was a City of Miami police officer and Mr. Benitez was a drug dealer. Mr. Arias testified that after Cuello and Benitez arrived, he told them and the Respondent that he and other police officers were about to engage in the Tamiami Marina drug rip-off. Mr. Arias contends that Respondent wanted to participate in the drug rip-off, but that the leader of the expedition did not permit Respondent's participation. Mr. Arias contends that he and Pedrera then left to meet with the other participants in the drug rip-off. Respondent denies the accusations made against him by Mr. Arias and by Mr. Pedrera and contends that neither man was present at his residence on July 12, 1985. Little weight is given to Mr. Pedrera's hearsay testimony in light of his refusal to testify. Even if Mr. Pedrera's hearsay testimony was considered as buttressing that of Mr. Arias, the circumstances under which their stories were first given and the questionable credibility of Mr. Arias and Mr. Pedrera 1/ render their testimony an insufficient basis upon which it can be concluded that the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint have been established by clear and convincing evidence. 2/ The denial of these accusations by Respondent is found to be credible based, in part, on his demeanor. In addition, the undersigned has considered that Respondent has never been prosecuted criminally, there was no evidence that his credibility has been called into question, and he was employed as a reserve police officer by the City of Virginia Gardens after a thorough background check. His performance as a reserve police officer by the City of Virginia Gardens has been above suspicion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the charges brought against Respondent, Ignacio F. Menocal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 1991. 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 3rd day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact District is a governmental agency of the State of Florida created and empowered by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to regulate permitting and construction of water wells, and to regulate well contractors. William Bedard, Post Office Box 545, Branford, Florida 32208, is a water well contractor with license #2830. Bedard constructed a water well for Wendell Forsythe in Three Rivers Estate, Township 6 South, Range 15 East, Section 25 in Columbia County, Florida. This is within the District. Said well was a four inch water well. Said well was constructed sometime prior to July 11, 1991. Bedard applied for a permit from the District on July 11, 1991. District requested additional information from Bedard by telephone on July 11, 1991, and followed up with a letter which was mailed March 23, 1992. The additional information in the form of a survey was provided to the District on May 22, 1992. The District issued a permit for said water well on June 16, 1992, approximately 11 months after the well was drilled. Bedard had one previous violation for drilling a water well without a permit. He applied for and received an after-the-fact permit in that instance. In mitigation, Bedard offered the following facts: Wendell Forsythe (Forsythe) lives in South Florida and only comes to his property in Columbia County on weekends. Forsythe met with Bedard on the site to discuss the proposed well. Forsythe said he wanted to go forward, and Bedard advised Forsythe that he would begin on Monday after he obtained a permit from the District Office which was closed. Forsythe wanted to see the work done, and told Bedard that he would get another contractor if Bedard would not start the well right away. Bedard constructed the well and applied for a permit on the first working day after construction of said well. Before Bedard constructed the well, Forsythe told him that the site was not within the flood plain and a survey would not be required. The site was within the flood plain, and a topographic survey was required. The District asked Bedard for a survey. Bedard passed the request for the survey on to Forsythe, however, Forsythe did not provide this information until May of 1992 when he became aware that he might be liable. The District's attorney's fees and administrative costs were $970.00.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A penalty be assessed against the Respondent in the amount of $275, and and Two and one half points be assessed against the Respondent's license, No attorneys fees or costs be assessed through this administrative hearing process. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, FL 32056-1029 William Bedard Post Office Box 545 Branford, FL 32208 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3 Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 24, 1984, and issued certificate number 19-84-002- 03. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Miami Police Department during 1985. On May 31, 1985, a drug rip-off occurred in Miami, Florida, at Nuta's Boat Yard. Approximately 187 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 12, 1985, a second drug rip-off occurred in Miami at the Tamiami Marina. Between 400-450 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 28, 1985, a third drug rip-off occurred in Miami at Jones Boat yard. Approximately 450 kilos of cocaine were taken. Several City of Miami police officers were involved in these three drug rip-offs and the subsequent resale of the stolen cocaine. The subsequent prosecution of these cases became known as the "Miami River Cops Cases". Respondent Collazo did not participate in any of these three drug rip-offs and he has not been prosecuted criminally. Three of the witnesses in this matter, Rudolfo Arias, Carlos Pedrera, and Regino Capiro were involved in the Miami River Cops Cases and were, at the time of the formal hearing, incarcerated in the federal prison system. Mr. Arias Mr. Capiro, and Mr. Pedrera had each entered into a plea agreement with the federal prosecutors. Each of these witnesses had, in exchange for substantial benefits, agreed to divulge information as to wrongdoing by other police officers and to testify against those implicated officers if necessary. The benefits received by Mr. Arias included his being placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Despite his plea agreement, Mr. Pedrera refused to testify in this proceeding and was withdrawn as a witness before he gave any substantive testimony. Although neither Mr. Arias nor Mr. Capiro received any direct benefit for his testimony in this proceeding, the testimony presented by both of these witnesses was a product of his respective plea agreement. Mr. Arias was an officer with the City of Miami Police Department in 1985 and knew Respondent as a fellow officer. Armando Garcia, who was also an officer with the City of Miami Police Department in 1985, was considered by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent Judd to be the most culpable of those police officers involved in the Miami River Cops Case. Mr. Arias was considered to be the second-most culpable. Mr. Arias had been contacted by Mr. Garcia and invited to come to his home on the evening of July 29, 1985, the day after the drug rip-off at the Jones Boat Yard. When Mr. Arias arrived at Mr. Garcia's residence at approximately 6:00 p.m., a drug dealer named Jose Benitez was present with members of the Garcia family. Armando Garcia arrived at approximately 6:30 p.m. and was accompanied by Oswaldo Cuello. Mr. Cuello was, at that time, a City of Miami police officer. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Cuello informed Mr. Arias that they had participated in the drug rip-off at the Jones Boat Yard and recruited him to help dispose of the stolen cocaine. Mr. Arias was shown approximately 100 kilos of cocaine that had been packaged in large, clear plastic bags and stored in the Garcia house inside a bedroom closet. Mr. Arias agreed to help sell the stolen cocaine. Respondent, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Garcia were, in addition to being fellow officers, friends who socialized together. Mr. Arias, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Benitez entered into a conversation during which either Mr. Garcia, Mr. Cuello, or Mr. Benitez made certain statements about the Respondent. 1/ Mr. Arias left the Garcia house between 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on July 29, 1985, with ten kilos of cocaine in a plastic garbage bag. During that time, different people entered and exited the Garcia house. Those entering brought money into the house in different ways, such as in a paper bag or a gym bag, while those leaving the house left carrying various objects such as paper bags and briefcases. Mr. Arias left the yard area through the front gate, walked down the street to his car, and placed the cocaine he had been given to sell in his car. As he was doing this, Respondent drove up toward the front gate, parked approximately two car lengths in front of Mr. Arias's car, and blew his horn. Mr. Arias then saw Respondent engage in a conversation with Mr. Cuello and Mr. Benitez, but he did not hear the conversation. Mr. Arias was joined in conversation with Mr. Garcia and was not paying close attention to Respondent, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Benitez. Mr. Arias witnessed either Mr. Cuello or Mr. Benitez place a bag in the trunk of Respondent's vehicle which he described as a light brown bag which could have been a grocery bag or a shopping bag. Mr. Arias did not see Respondent holding this bag and he did not know the contents of that bag. Mr. Arias did not see Respondent either enter or exit Mr. Garcia's house and he did not know whose bag it was or from where it came. 2/ Mr. Arias was later told by Mr. Garcia that the Respondent had taken four kilos on the night of July 29, 1985, but that he had only sold one and had returned three of the kilos. 3/ Mr. Arias was also told by Respondent's partner, Officer Squeeky Morales, that Respondent had made certain statements to him regarding his sale of stolen cocaine. 4/ During 1985, Regino Capiro was a City of Miami police officer who became involved in the Miami River Cops case. During 1985, after the Jones Boat Yard rip-off, Mr. Capiro met with Armando Garcia (both Mr. Capiro and Mr. Garcia were still City of Miami police officers at this point in time) in response to a burglary call. The Respondent also appeared at the scene, even though he was off duty. The Respondent invited Mr. Garcia to come by Respondent's house, which was a half of a block from the burglary scene, after they were through with the burglary call. After completing their work at the burglary call, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Capiro drove to Respondent's house. While they were at Respondent's house, Mr. Capiro overheard Mr. Garcia and the Respondent discussing the fact that Respondent had sold for Mr. Garcia some of the cocaine that had been stolen in one of the Miami River drug rip-offs. Mr. Garcia told Mr. Capiro that the Respondent had sold cocaine for him from one of the drug rip-offs 5/ and that Respondent was available to sell cocaine for Mr. Capiro if Mr. Capiro wanted him to do so. These statements were made by Mr. Garcia to Mr. Capiro in the presence of Respondent and without denial from Respondent. Upon hearing these statements, Respondent did not verbally respond, but he did nod his head in agreement. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent, Vincent E. Collazo, possessed and sold an unknown quantity of cocaine on or about July 1985, and which revokes his certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 1991. 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 3rd day of July, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Hilda T. Clark, Respondent, is a registered nurse who holds license no. 21750-2. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing reveals that during 1961, while Respondent was employed as a private duty nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in Miami, she withdrew a narcotic drug, to wit: Dilaudid, for her patient, Mrs. Fanny Goldblum on approximately thirty occasions, which she administered to herself instead of the patient. Based on an Information for violation of the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (Chapter 398.19, F.S.) which was filed on March 15, 1961, the Respondent pled guilty and was placed on probation for a term of seven years on March 31, 1961. Thereafter, on January 12, 1977, the Respondent, while employed as a private duty registered nurse at the University of Miami Hospital and Clinic, converted to her own use a narcotic drug, to wit: Demerol. When confronted with this fact, the Respondent admitted to the Head Nurse, M. Francis, R.N., that she had injected herself with the Demerol and that she was addicted to narcotics for many years. The Respondent does not contest the above allegations and in fact admits that she engaged in the conduct that is alleged in the administrative complaint filed herein. However, she urges that the suspension of her license is unwarranted in these circumstances inasmuch as she was undergoing tremendous pressure based on her mother and spouse's poor health. Additionally, she related an incident wherein she was undergoing tremendous pain and was placed on the medication, Demerol for the relief of pain due to severe herpes zoster infection. Evidence and testimony introduced during the course of the hearing reveal that herpes zoster infection causes severe pain and that to control such pain, her physician, Edward E. Goldman, M.D., prescribed oral Tolwen, Demerol and Dilaudid suppositories. There also was evidence introduced during the course of the hearing which indicated that the Respondent is not now suffering from any drug related problems or addiction and that her professional abilities are beyond question. Respecting the most recent incident which occurred on January 12, 1977, evidence reveals that the Respondent was indeed laboring under a great deal of stress and mental pressures which, in her words, forced her to resort to the unlawful withdrawal and injection of the narcotic drug, Demerol. There was no evidence introduced that the Respondent engaged in any unlawful act during the period between the incident which occurred in 1961 and the January, 1977 incident. Nor was there any further evidence of any drug addiction problem by Respondent subsequent to the January, 1977 incident. The unlawful use of and procurement of drugs by nursing professionals is a serious act which should not be condoned without sanction by the Board of Nursing. It goes without saying that such acts and/or conduct constitutes a departure from the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and in fact constitutes unprofessional conduct. See Chapter 464.21(b), Florida Statutes. Based on evidence received during the course of the hearing, there is substantial and competent evidence from which a finding can be made that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of the above chapter i.e., Subsection 464.21(b), Florida Statutes. However, there was no evidence introduced on which a finding can be made that the Respondent is guilty of conduct violative of Chapter 464.21(c) and (d), as alleged. Although two instances of unlawful useage of narcotic drugs was alleged which the Respondent admits, in view of the length of time between the two occurrences, the undersigned concludes that the record fails to establish that the Respondent is habitually addicted to the use of controlled substances as provided in Chapter 464.21(c), Florida Statutes. I shall therefore recommend that the remaining two allegations be dismissed. Respecting the finding that the Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Chapter 464.21(b), Florida Statutes, I shall bear in mind and give consideration to the lengthy and creditable service that she has given to the nursing profession, a profession in which she desires to continue to practice. Based thereon and the favorable testimonials received into evidence, I shall recommend that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Respondent be placed on probation for a term of two years. In all other respects, I hereby recommend that the complaint allegations be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 George A. Kokus, Esquire Cohen and Kokus 500 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The defendants Polly E. and Joseph J. Schwey were, during the time material herein, registered real estate brokers with the commission and during times pertinent were operating and registered with the commission t/a Schwey Real Estate, Vero Beach, Florida. During July, 1973, the defendant Joseph J. Schwey entered into an oral agreement with Mid Lakes/Mid-River Packing Company, Inc., through messengers A. Victor Cancelmo and R. D. Goolsby, officers and managers thereof, for the purchase and sale of one thousand pallet boxes for a total purchase price of $20,000.00 F.O.B. Costa Rica to be imported therefrom to Miami, Florida, on or before September 1, 1973. According to messenger Goolsby, the general manager and vice-president of Mid Lakes/Mid-River Packing Company, Inc., he entered in an agreement with the defendant Joseph J. Schwey whereby he was to pay one third of the purchase price as a down payment, the remaining one third to be paid when the pallet boxes were constructed and the remaining one third down payment to be paid upon deliverance to Miami. He testified that the $20,000.00 price was one factor and the other price that motivated him to enter into the agreement with the defendant Joseph J. Schwey was the extremely high quality of the boxes, samples of which he had observed and which were manufactured in Costa Rica. On July 10, 1973, messenger Goolsby drew a check in the amount of $2500 payable to Schwey Real Estate Escrow Account and on August 1, 1973, another check for $4000 was paid (FREC Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). According to messenger Goolsby, messenger Schwey was to begin delivery of the pallet boxes during July. Repeated efforts to obtain delivery of the boxes were unavailing and on January 18, 1974, messenger Goolsby demanded the return of the $6500 forthwith. (FREC Composite Exhibit 6). According to Goolsby, defendant Polly Schwey had no obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract. In this regard he testified on cross- examination that the agreement was solely between defendant Joseph J. Schwey and the officers of Mid Lakes/Mid-River Packing Company, Inc. He testified that Joseph Schwey's obligation was to have the boxes manufactured by a manufacturing firm in Costa Rica to his specifications. Goolsby was told by defendant Joseph Schwey that the manufacturer went bankrupt and was unable to recover his $6500 down payment which he had turned over to the manufacturer. In this regard, the testimony revealed that Mid-River Packing Company placed no restrictions on how the $6500 down payment was to be spent. In any event, no directives were given by Mid-River Packing Company that the money was to be held in escrow until delivery of the pallet boxes was effected. To this date, delivery of the pallet boxes has not been made and, in fact, the defendant Joseph Schwey caused to be executed a sworn affidavit that the manufacturer went bankrupt and he was unable to recoup any of the $6500 down payment paid to the manufacturer. He testified that the purpose of the check was to make a deposit to the manufacturer who was to construct and export the pallet boxes from Costa Rica to Miami, Florida.
Conclusions The record herein fails to establish that the Defendants Joseph and Polly Schwey engaged in acts and/or conduct violative of Chapter 475.25(1)(a) and (c), F.S., as alleged. By the complaining witnesses' own testimony, the $6500.00 payment was to be advanced to the manufacturer as a pre-payment to commence construction of the pallet boxes. (Exhibit B of Defendant Polly Schwey's motion for continuance) While this statement is not per se evidence that the pre-payment was tendered to the manufacturer, no evidence was offered to the contrary and of course the burden of proof in these cases rest with the Commission. State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973). In this regard the proof is lacking. No evidence was entered to establish the complaint allegations that the pre-payment was to be held in trust or escrow as alleged. Finally, the evidence reveals that Defendant Polly Schwey was in no way obligated pursuant to the contractual agreement with Mid- River Packing Company to supply the pallet boxes. Based on this record it can only be concluded that pursuant to an agreement between Joseph Schwey and Mid- River Packing Company, Defendant Joseph Schwey received an agreed upon payment which was tendered to the manufacturer. Prior to delivery of the pallet boxes the manufacturer went bankrupt and Defendant Schwey was unable to obtain a refund of the pre-payment. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1977.
The Issue Whether Resolution No. P64-96 of the Monroe County Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed or modified?
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 its 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 at the Peace River Center for Personal Development, Inc. (Peace River Center) in Polk County, Florida, as a counselor for abused or chemically-dependent children. This job required that Petitioner be screened in accordance with Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. This screening revealed a felony conviction which disqualified Petitioner from his employment. Petitioner and Peace River Center were notified on February 3, 1997. As required by law, Peace River Center removed Petitioner from contact with children and assigned him to other duties. On August 31, 1990, Petitioner was charged with vehicular homicide, a felony, to which he pled nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld. Petitioner served 3 years probation and paid costs of $275.00. The pertinent facts surrounding the accident are: (a) Petitioner was traveling at approximately 75-to-80 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone when he struck and killed a pedestrian who was attempting to cross the street; (b) The victim was a married woman in her mid 50's with an adult son; (c) Petitioner had no excuse for the excessive speed; (d) Both Petitioner and his passenger were severely injured; and (e) There were no drugs or alcohol involved. Petitioner received some counseling after the accident; however, he currently is not receiving any counseling. Even though Petitioner testified that his inability to hold a job was related to the accident, there was no indication that Petitioner felt he needed or intended to get counseling in this regard. Petitioner graduated from high school and has completed approximately 30 hours toward his college degree. Petitioner is planning to begin college again and work toward a degree in Management Information Systems. Since the accident, Petitioner has held six different jobs. Presently, Petitioner is working with Peace River Center (see Finding of Fact 3). Before being disqualified, Petitioner appeared to be doing a credible job for Peace River Center. In April 1994 and March 1996, Petitioner was involved in automobile accidents wherein Petitioner was charged with reckless driving. No one was injured in these accidents, and there was only minimal property damage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Families enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in positions of trust and responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Scot Adams, pro se Post Office Box 212 Highlands City, Florida 33846 Jack Emory Farley Chief Legal Counsel District 14 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
