The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty and responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes (2007); Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes (2007); and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate associate in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. SL-3144440. On or about May 5, 2005, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate sales associate. Pertinent to this case, Item 1 on the Background Information section of the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" (by checking the appropriate box) to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if you received a withhold of adjudication? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." "YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Respondent answered the question by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with Respondent's Attest Statement before a Notary Public of the State of Florida as follows: I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. * * * I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. On October 7, 2005, Respondent passed the sales associate examination. From October 7, 2005, to November 14, 2005, her license was in inactive status. From November 14, 2005, through the date of hearing, Respondent has been licensed as an active sales associate with Perfect Gulf Properties, Inc., doing business as Century 21 Sunshine Realty. Following approval of Respondent's application and her licensure as a real estate associate, Petitioner received the results of a state and federal records search which revealed a criminal history not disclosed on Respondent's application. That records search revealed a criminal conviction in the Circuit Court, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Brevard County, Florida. On January 24, 1991, Respondent was convicted of robbery with a weapon, not deadly, a first-degree felony, and sentenced to three and a half years' incarceration. Respondent maintains that based on a telephone conversation with someone at the Brevard County Courthouse and the fact that she is/was a notary, registered voter, served on a jury, and is a licensed minister, that the record of her criminal activity had been expunged. This is not credible. Respondent did not initiate any action to cause her criminal record to have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, nor did she make any reasonably, prudent inquiry regarding the status of her criminal record prior to answering questions regarding same and affirming to accuracy of her application for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violations found, Respondent's license be revoked and that she be charged fees in accordance with Subsection 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 15th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a license from the Florida Real Estate Commission was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, his Background, and the Application Leroy L. Baines, Jr., was born on October 31, 1985. Currently 29 years old, he is employed with a financial services company. He serves on the board of a non-profit organization called Butterfly Foundation Group. The organization works with underprivileged and at-risk youth. He also works with J.J.’s Boxing Club and Global Village, both non-profit entities. In 2005, Mr. Baines pled no contest to a criminal traffic infraction: operating a motor vehicle without a valid license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 1”). He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. Respondent’s Ex. No. 1 at 00028. The following calendar year, 2006, Mr. Baines was convicted of driving while his license was cancelled, suspended, revoked, or he was disqualified from holding a license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 2”). Id. at 00022. In 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Baines pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty of two federal crimes: 1) conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, and 2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (the “Federal Criminal Offenses”). Id. at 00013. Mr. Baines was sentenced to 55 months imprisonment for the Federal Criminal Offenses on June 18, 2008. He served his sentence in prisons located in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. His sentence expired on June 30, 2014, and he was discharged from supervision on September 3, 2014. Id. at 00040. On April 11, 2014, Respondent received Mr. Baines’ application for licensure as a real estate associate (the “Application”). He answered “Yes” to Background Question 1, which asks, “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction . . . ?” Id. at 00010. After the background questions in the Application, the Application states, “If you answered ‘YES’ to any question in [the background questions], please refer to Section IV of the Instructions for detailed instructions on providing complete explanations, including requirements for submitting supporting legal documents.” Id. In the Application’s “Section IV(b) – Explanation(s) for Background Question 1,” Petitioner listed the Federal Criminal Offenses. For one of the two offenses under “Penalty/Disposition,” he wrote “Time Served”; for the other, he wrote “55 months.” Id. Under “Description” as to each of the two Federal Criminal Offenses, Petitioner wrote, “5 years Supervised Release.” Id. Despite the Application’s detailed instructions that require criminal traffic infractions to be listed (“This question applies to any criminal violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses . . . .” Id.), Petitioner failed to list the two Criminal Traffic Infractions. Petitioner’s Case Mr. Baines testified that his application should be granted because he has cooperated with Respondent by providing everything that was asked of him during the Application review process. Although he had not included the Criminal Traffic Infractions on the written Application, he freely admitted during the hearing it was his responsibility at the time he made out the Application to report them and to offer any relevant explanation of them. With regard to the Criminal Traffic Infractions, Mr. Baines testified he spent 30 days in the Orange County Jail. He seeks leniency in this application process based on his age at the time of the offenses which he claimed, at first, was 16. Noting the difference between his birthday and 2005 and 2006, Mr. Baines conceded during cross-examination that he was several years older than 16 at the time of the Criminal Traffic Infractions. Mr. Baines elaborated on the Federal Criminal Offenses explaining that he had fallen in with former high school friends whom he had not seen for some time when they recruited him to drive the get-away car in a robbery. He stated that at the time of the crime he was in possession of two guns both of which he had been carrying legally prior to the crime: a nine millimeter Glock and a .40 caliber handgun. Mr. Baines’ time in prison was spent without any violations of prison rules, according to his testimony, and he completed the post-release program successfully. His success in serving his time is the basis, Mr. Baines asserted, for his release from federal supervision so promptly after the expiration of the sentence. No documentation of “good behavior” in prison, however, was offered at hearing. In an attempt to demonstrate rehabilitation, Mr. Baines referred to his service to the Butterfly Foundation, J.J.’s Boxing Club, and the other two non-profit organizations with which he works that serve at-risk youth in the Pompano and Fort Lauderdale areas. He also averred that he had been cleared by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to work with underprivileged youth for cheerleading and gymnastics although he offered no supportive documentary evidence from DCF. Mr. Baines did submit to Respondent as part of his application three documents related to rehabilitation. The first extolled his work as an employee. The second was written by a teacher at Stranahan High School who is a fellow basketball player at pick-up games in a public basketball court in Plantation, Florida. The third was written by his pastor at the Living Waters Sanctuary in Oakland Park, Florida. The authors of the letters all write highly of Mr. Baines. In support of his case for rehabilitation, Mr. Baines testified that after his conviction for the Federal Criminal Offenses, he had had only one slip-up: a urinalysis (“UA”) positive for marijuana, a substance he had used as a youth. Mr. Baines claimed that the UA was conducted only because those supervising his post-release case sent him for the testing after Mr. Baines had voluntarily acknowledged his recent use of marijuana. But for the single marijuana incident, Mr. Baines asserted under oath that his record after his conviction, in prison and out of prison during a post-incarceration discharge period, had been spotless. His admirable conduct, he testified, is what led to the court to promptly release him from federal supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 16th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leroy L. Baines, Jr. 4808 Northwest 8th Court Lauderhill, Florida 33317 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Profession Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of both signs to include the entire advertising structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structures after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire 310 East Jackson Street Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), was and is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in this state. The Respondent, Douglas E. Szczepanik, was and is certified in Florida as a law enforcement officer. Late on the evening of August 22, 1988, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Delray Beach, Florida, Police Department, (Department). While at the hospital with Officer Eberhart collecting a blood specimen from a third person for use in another police matter, he heard a police radio call relating to the hot pursuit of a felony suspect. He and Eberhart went to the scene of the expected apprehension and found that the suspect had been apprehended after a high speed chase by several police cars including one driven by Officer Thomas A. Whatley. It was subsequently determined that the suspect had lost control of his vehicle, a stolen car, and had ended up abandoning it on the city's municipal golf course adjacent to West Atlantic Avenue. He then ran off on foot across the course with Officer Whatley in pursuit in his police cruiser. The suspect ran up a hill and down the other side. Whatley, surmising that the hill was no more than that, and that the other side of the hill was a down slope, drove up the hill after the suspect at a speed of approximately 45 to 50 mph. As he reached the crest, he found that he was on the lip of a sand trap and since he could not stop, his car became airborne, coming to rest some 25 - 30 feet further along, in the sand trap. Though it did not bear significant outward signs of damage, the vehicle was, in fact rendered inoperable as a result of the impact. Fortunately, the suspect was apprehended by other officers on the scene. As a result of the serious nature of the suspect's alleged crimes, suspected murder of an officer and car theft, many Delray Beach officers were involved in the chase and were, therefore, on the scene at the time of the apprehension and Whatley's vehicular mishap, including his Lieutenant, Woods, and his patrol sergeant, then Sergeant Musco. Lt. Woods directed Sgt. Musco to block traffic on Atlantic Avenue and another officer to get the damaged vehicles towed away. He directed Respondent, then at the scene, to write the traffic accident report relating to Whatley's car. There is some indication that initially Woods did not think a report was necessary, but he ultimately became convinced it was and gave the job to Respondent. Since both Respondent and Eberhart were traffic investigators, Eberhart indicated he would do it and Respondent acquiesced. Respondent and Eberhart both discussed the accident and both developed their own theory as to how it happened. Neither, however, bothered to question Whatley who remained at the scene for some time before being directed to resume patrol, using Respondent's cruiser. Even when that was being set up, Respondent did not question Whatley as to what had happened, speaking to him only to caution him not to lose his keys when he turned them over to him. Based on their examination of the scene on Atlantic Avenue, and without even looking at Whatley's vehicle and where it ended up, Eberhart concluded that the accident occurred when the suspect lost control of his vehicle and ran into Whatley's forcing him to lose control and run up the side of and into the sand trap. Had Eberhart bothered to look at the vehicle, he would have seen no body damage consistent with collision. Eberhart was subsequently convinced by Respondent, who did look at Whatley's vehicle, that an alternative theory, indicating that the suspect lost control of his vehicle and prompted Whatley to lose control of his in an effort to avoid a collision, was what happened. In any event, Respondent claims that later that evening, back at Police Headquarters, he saw Whatley attempting to write out his report. Whatley allegedly asked Respondent for help in writing it since he was relatively new to the force and this was his first accident. Respondent also claims that he merely told Whatley the format for the report and the type of information to put in it. He admits that, as an example of what to say, he told Whatley his theory of the accident. When Whatley indicated that was not how it happened, Respondent allegedly told him, then, to write in what did happen as he, Whatley, recalled it, and he denies suggesting that Whatley use his scenario if it was not correct. Whatley, on the other hand, claims that while they were still at the scene of the accident he talked with Respondent and told him what had happened. Respondent supposedly walked around the wreck and then told Whatley to put in his supplement to the accident report that he had been taking evasive action. When Whatley told him that was not the way it happened, Respondent is alleged to have said that the people "upstairs" wanted police accident reports to reflect no fault on the part of the officers. Whatley claims that Sgt. Musco was present at the time but Musco does not profess to have heard that and Respondent categorically denies that Whatley told him at the scene how the accident occurred or that he went to the sand trap to look at the vehicle. In a statement made to Captain Schrader in November, 1988 as a part of the Internal Affairs investigation, Respondent again denied he spoke with Whatley at the accident scene. No evidence was presented by the Petitioner as to what benefit Respondent would gain or what detriment he would avoid by telling Whatley to falsify his supplement. Musco claims that when he first saw Whatley, he appeared depressed about the incident and Musco told him to write it up as it had happened and not to worry about it because he, Musco, was not worried about the car. When Respondent, who Musco had assigned to write up the report, said he was going to show it had happened when Whatley attempted to avoid an accident, Musco told him to write the report honestly as he had been trained to do, and as Whatley had reported it. Musco did not follow up to see if the report or Whatley's supplement thereto was prepared properly. Since he had assigned the duty to a trained traffic/homicide investigator, (Respondent), he presumed it was done correctly. He knows of no policy to falsify reports of police accidents and in fact has had an accident himself, in which he was at fault, and which was written up accurately. Respondent claims that after he spoke with Whatley at Police headquarters and told him to write the report honestly, he left and met Lt. Woods outside. He told Woods that Eberhart was going to write the accident report and that Whatley was going to write his supplement honestly. Woods reportedly responded that was no good because he had already told everyone it had happened because of Whatley's attempt to evade the suspect's car. Because of that, even though Woods did not give him any instructions to do so, Respondent claims he went back inside and told Whatley to write his supplement the way he remembered it. Respondent claims that at no time did he ever tell Whatley to write a false report. He also claims that he never made the statement attributed to him regarding the people "upstairs." He would have nothing to gain or to lose by convincing Whatley to falsify his supplement. After getting advice from Respondent and from Sgt. Musco, Officer Whatley, for some reason, wrote his supplement indicating he had the accident in an attempt to evade the suspect's out of control vehicle. Whatley cites two meetings with Respondent that evening, as does Respondent, but their stories of what transpired differs radically. Whatley claims that Respondent told him to make sure his supplement conformed to what was in Eberhart's report. He did, and when he gave it to Lt. Woods to read, Woods rejected it because it was false and Woods knew it to be false. Woods then told him to hold off on the supplement and about a week later, Whatley was told by Captain Cole to write another supplement which was accurate. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he had little contact with Whatley at the scene of the mishap and denies any direct conversation with him about the accident. All he said, he claims, was, "it doesn't look too bad." Respondent asserts that at no time did Whatley tell him how the accident occurred. Later that evening, when, at the station he saw Whatley writing his report, Whatley asked him for advice as to how to construct and what to put into his supplemental report. Respondent claims he told Whatley to go back and tell the story as it happened. He admits to telling Whatley how he felt the accident occurred but when Whatley said that was not how it was, Respondent again told him to write it as it happened. This whole conversation took no more than a minute or a minute and a half. The only direction he gave Whatley was as to the format of the supplement, not the substance, other than that it be the truth. When, a few minutes later, Respondent saw Woods and told him that Whatley was having trouble, Woods told Respondent how he felt the accident had occurred. At that time, Woods gave Respondent no directions, but Respondent went back into the station and again told Whatley to write up his supplement the way he, Whatley, recalled the accident happening. The following day, according to Respondent, Woods pulled him aside and told him he had just spoken to Major Lincoln who said the report was to be written as Respondent had originally said the accident had occurred, incorrectly. At no time did Respondent speak directly with Lincoln about the accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 17th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, regarding the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this proceeding. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 14. Not phrased as Findings of Fact but more as restatements of testimony. However, the substance of the restatements is correctly stated and has been accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein as an accurate recitation of Whatley's story. 24. & 25. Again, not phrased as Findings of Fact. Here, however, the substance of Whatley's statement is rejected as not proven. 26. & 27. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Whatley and Respondent did meet at the station that evening, but the allegation that Respondent told Whatley to falsify his report is not supported by credible evidence. & 34. These are restatements of testimony but are accepted. 35. - 37. An accurate restatement of the testimony, but the testimony is rejected as unsupported. Even Lincoln denied making the statement. 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. & 45. Accepted as accurate recitations of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Gaddy, Esquire Michael R. Ramage, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Salerno, Esquire 242 Plaza Office P.O. Box 1349 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long Director CJSTC Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are not in dispute, however, the Petitioner appealed the agency's act of suspending him for a period of eight hours without pay based on his contention that the suspension "is excessive". On March 2, 1978, while on duty assigned as a Highway Accident Investigator, the Petitioner investigated an accident which occurred at Kelly's Shell Station which is located on State Road 207 and Interstate 95 in St. Augustine, Florida. After completing his investigation, the Petitioner in an attempt to leave the scene of the accident, struck a sign post with the right front bumper of his car, causing damage to his vehicle in the amount of approximately $728.00. There is no dispute but that the accident was determined to be the fault of the Petitioner. Following the completion of an accident report and an investigation of the matter, Captain Hodges, who is assigned to the St. Augustine Office recommended the issuance of a letter of written reprimand to the Petitioner, however, upon review by the headquarters office, the Petitioner was suspended for a period of one day because in the opinion of the reviewing team, such a penalty was warranted in view of circumstances which prompted the accident and the severity of the damage. During the hearing it was further revealed that there were no view obstructions and the weather was clear and dry. As stated, there is little dispute factually in this case, however, the Petitioner contends that there were no acts of gross negligence on his part; this was his first accident wherein he was charged with fault, and that other troopers involved in similar accidents had only received letters of reprimand. Chapter 22A-10, Florida Administrative Code authorizes the Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to discipline employees for violations of its rules and regulations. In view thereof, and inasmuch as the suspension herein was issued pursuant to the guides of Chapter 22A-10 and the admissions of Petitioner that he was at fault in causing the accident to which he was suspended, there is competent and substantial evidence to sustain the action of the Respondent in suspending the Petitioner for a period of eight hours without pay. This appears to be an area of discretion which does not lie within the authority of the Hearing Officer to second guess the wisdom of the Respondent, or to attempt to determine whether or not the suspension was "excessive". I shall therefore recommend that the agency action be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions I hereby recommend that the action of the agency suspending the Petitioner for a period of eight hours without pay be SUSTSAINED. ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Cantrell Rt. 4, Box 241EZ-1 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Major John Hicks, Deputy Director Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Dorothy B. Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact At about 12:00 noon on January 31, 1971, an automobile collision occurred in Clay County, Florida, between David Earl Mattox and Douglas Jay Gilbert. Mattox, driving a Chevrolet pick-up, slid into the rear of Gilbert's Ford sedan after being unable to stop on the wet pavement. Mattox was uninjured and Gilbert complained of a slight headache. An acquaintance of Gilbert was riding in Gilbert's car as a passenger. Neither driver reported the accident at that time and, in fact, drove his own vehicle to Gilbert's place of business to talk about the accident. A decision was made at that meeting to handle the matter privately without notification of insurance companies or law enforcement, authorities. Later that day, Gilbert's head and neck began hurting so Gilbert's father took him to a doctor in Green Cove Springs. The doctor advised Gilbert that he had suffered whiplash. Gilbert continued to visit the hospital for about two days for treatment and diagnosis. That same evening, after the diagnosis was received, Gilbert's father called Mattox and advised him that the accident should be reported. Mattox agreed and at approximately 5:00 p.m. on the day of the accident, Mattox called Libby at home. Mattox had planned a trip to Daytona Beach that evening so Libby agreed to wait until the next day to make his investigation of the accident. At about 3:00 p.m., February 1, 1977, Libby met with Mattox and Gilbert's father at Mattox's place of business. At that time, Libby interviewed Mattox and Gilbert's father, inspected Mattox's vehicle and prepared the accident report. Gilbert was not present at the meeting and at no time did Libby interview him or Gilbert's passenger regarding the accident. At no time did Libby inspect Gilbert's vehicle. Although another Florida Highway Payroll trooper was on duty in the area, Libby agreed to conduct the accident investigation even though he was not on duty. Libby attended the meeting in civilian clothes. Libby did not investigate the scene of the accident. The accident report prepared by Libby fails to disclose that Gilbert's vehicle contained a passenger and fails to include a diagram of the collision. The accident report recites the amount and degree of damage to Gilbert's car, notwithstanding Libby's failure to inspect the vehicle. The stated damages in the accident report are $150.00 whereas the actual damages were closer to $400.00. As reflected in the accident report, no arrests or charges were made as a result of the collision. As of the time of the hearing, no charges had been made and no supplemental report had been filed. It is the policy of FHP that all vehicles be inspected and all principals be interviewed, if possible, prior to the final preparation of an accident report. In addition, it is policy that Highway Patrol officers be in uniform when performing their duties. The accepted procedure in these circumstances would have been for Libby to either contact an on duty trooper to go on duty himself in uniform prior to investigating the accident. Libby has been previously disciplined for negligence in the performance of his duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Career Service Commission sustain the action taken by FHP. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL R.N. McDONNELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. B. M. Libby Post Office Box 322 Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Edwin E. Strickland, Esquire General Counsel Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Dorothy B. Roberts Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner should be permitted to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact In September 2003, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by the State of Florida as a real estate sales associate. In an application section titled "Background Information" question 1 asks in relevant part, "[h]ave you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . ." to which the Petitioner responded in the affirmative. "Background Information" question 4 in relevant part asks, "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, vocation, or business been revoked, annulled, suspended, relinquished, surrendered, or withdrawn . . ." to which the Respondent replied in the affirmative. Question 1 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the incident(s) by completion of "form 0050-1." Question 4 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the termination(s) by completion of "form 0060-1." The disclosure forms completed by the Petitioner (if any) are not in the Respondent's files and are unavailable for review. The Petitioner's application package was presented to the Commission on December 16, 2003. After considering his presentation, the Commission denied his application and instructed him to return with additional information related to the disclosed charges. The Petitioner apparently sought reconsideration, and his application package was again presented to the Commission on March 17, 2004. After reconsidering the Petitioner's background, the Commission again denied his application. The Petitioner then sought an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of his application. On or about July 26, 2000, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with stalking. The Commission's records indicate that the Petitioner completed a pretrial program and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service. At the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that he was placed on probation for six months, and had to complete a six- month psychological evaluation. The stalking charge was nolle prossed. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that at the time of the stalking charge, he was working at a retail establishment. The object of his attention was a 16-year-old female who was working in the vicinity. The Petitioner was approximately 36 years old. The Petitioner asserted that he did not know the female was 16 years old at the time. He denied that he "stalked" the female, but stated that he merely spoke to her a few times in person and attempted to contact her once by telephone. He continued to express surprise at the stalking charge. On or about June 6, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, a felony, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to two years of probation, six months of psychological evaluation, and was required to pay court costs. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that he went to the home of an ex-girlfriend to collect a $500 debt she allegedly owed to him. He testified that he knocked on her door and got no response. As he left her residence, he saw that her automobile was unlocked. He opened the hood of the ex- girlfriend's vehicle and ripped out the spark plug cables. He asserted that he "didn't steal anything" because he threw the cables away and didn't keep them. On or about September 5, 2001, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, entered an order based on the Petitioner's stipulation, revoking his Class "D" Security Officer's License, based on the burglary charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Santana, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fernando Freire 5242 Millenia Boulevard, No. 304 Orlando, Florida 32839 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32808-1900
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action against the subject sign. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was hired by the City on July 25, 1977, as an electrician in the Electrical Department. Shortly thereafter he was transferred to the Traffic Engineering Department as an "electronics technician helper." The position of "electronics technician helper" is an entry level position in the Traffic Engineering Department. The helpers are responsible for performing technical electronics work, primarily in the area of traffic signal control devices and systems. The Respondent had ample qualifications, including education and experience, to qualify for the position. Up to and including the date of the final hearing, the Respondent remained employed with the City as an "electronics technician helper." During the time that he has been employed with the City, the Respondent has received regular periodic written evaluations. The City utilizes a "performance rating form" for these evaluations. An employee's performance is evaluated in several different areas on a rating system that ranges from a high rating of "satisfactory" to "exceeds standard" to "improvement needed" to a low rating of "unsatisfactory." In all of the evaluations of the Respondent, his "overall performance rating" was rated as needing improvement. In the important areas of "performance of assigned tasks," the Respondent has received consistently satisfactory ratings only in his ability to complete work on schedule. He has been evaluated as needing improvement or as unsatisfactory in areas designated "work completed meets requirements," "performs assigned tasks without close supervision," "uses tools and equipment properly," and "work does not have to be redone." The Respondent has also been evaluated as unsatisfactory or as needing improvement in the area of "technical knowledge." It is very unusual for the City to continue to employ persons in its Traffic Engineering Department for as long as the Respondent has been employed, without the employee ever receiving a satisfactory evaluation. The evaluations of the Respondent appear to reflect the opinions of the Respondent's supervisors that he is able to accomplish the job, but that he does not apply himself to the work at hand, and makes many mistakes. Several examples of deficiencies in the Respondent's work were established at the hearing. On one occasion, the Chief Traffic Signal Engineer explained to the Respondent step by step how to do a particular rewiring operation that involved three wires. The Respondent was also provided with a book that explained the procedure. The procedure was a simple one, and although it was explained to the Respondent on a Friday, he needed to have it reexplained to him the following Monday. On another instance, a number of three-wire cords, in which each of the cords were a different color, were to be wired with the black wire on a specific prong of a socket. The work was so repetitious that some mistakes would be expected. The Respondent wired half of them wrong. On another occasion, the Respondent was asked to reglue a "faceplate" that had been broken. The Respondent accomplished this task, but west on to bend and virtually destroy another faceplate so that he could remove it just to reglue it. On another occasion, the Respondent was asked to cut a cord in half and to install sockets on each end. He cut the wire in three pieces. Generally, the Respondent's work is so deficient that his supervisors will not let him work on equipment that could cause a hazard. As a part of his duties, the Respondent is occasionally "on call" to make emergency repairs on traffic control equipment. When he is called upon to make such repairs, the Respondent is responsible for preparing and submitting "time slips" which reflect the location and nature of the work, and the amount of time that it took to complete it. These cards are used to determine the Respondent's appropriate overtime pay, and also in many instances to establish whether or not equipment was working for litigation purposes. On March 8 and 9, 1980, the Respondent was called upon to make several emergency repairs. In his time slips and reports, the Respondent miscategorized some of the equipment that he utilized in making the repairs, specifically light bulbs; submitted reports that were mutually inconsistent as to the amount of time for which he was seeking overtime pay; did not reflect whether the repairs were accomplished in the "a.m." or "p.m."; and in one instance, they contained an overlap of time which would show the Respondent as being in two locations at the same time. The Respondent submitted the reports and time slips on March 10, 1980. It is not uncommon for there to be errors on the forms, and clerical employees typically correct them without returning them to the person who performed the work. There were so many errors, however, in the Respondent's forms that they were returned to him. The Respondent resubmitted the forms to the clerical staff, but they wore again deficient, and needed to be returned to him. After having some of the forms returned to him three times, the Respondent finally completed them adequately. While errors on the forms are common, the number of errors in the Respondent's forms is extraordinary.
