The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent has been certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer, certificate No. 02- 34512. In April, 1987, Respondent was employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) in Dade County, Florida. On the morning of April 9, 1987, at approximately 7:00 a.m., while dressed in his FHP uniform, Respondent went to the home of his girl friend, Connie Hawkins. Unable to waken Ms. Hawkins by knocking at the door, Respondent went around to her bedroom, began to bang on the glass, and attempted to pry open the window. As a result, the window broke and Ms. Hawkins was awakened by the noise. Respondent then demanded that Ms. Hawkins open the door since he had cut his left arm on the broken window. When Ms. Hawkins opened the door, Respondent began to strike her about the face and arm. Apparently, Respondent was angry that Ms. Hawkins had not opened the door earlier and felt she had caused the injury to his arm. This injury, a two inch cut on the left arm, was bleeding rather badly. Respondent went to Ms. Hawkins' bathroom and wrapped a hand towel around the wound in order to apply pressure and stop the bleeding. Subsequently, Respondent left the Hawkins' home in his FHP vehicle. After she was sure Respondent was gone, Ms. Hawkins telephoned the Metro-Dade police to report the incident. She did not want to have the Respondent criminally prosecuted, but she did want to take measures to assure he would not attack her again. After giving a statement to the police, Ms. Hawkins went to an area hospital for examination and treatment of her swollen face and bruised arm. She was required to wear a sling on the injured arm for a couple of days. The Metro-Dade police notified the FHP that one of its employees, Respondent, had been named in connection with a domestic disturbance. The report of the incident was given to Lt. Miller, the FHP supervisor on duty the morning of April 9, 1987. Coincidentally, that same morning at approximately 7:30 am., Lt. Miller had observed a cut on Respondent's left arm and had ordered him to a hospital for stitches. According to the story Respondent gave Lt. Miller, the injury had been caused by the FHP car door when Respondent was entering it after a routine highway stop. A sharp piece of the window framing had allegedly snagged Respondent's arm causing the cut. According to the Respondent, the piece of metal framing may have fallen off the car since the area was later found to be smooth.- Following treatment for the cut, Respondent signed a Notice of Injury form which is required by the Division of Workers' Compensation for all work- related injuries. This form alleged the injury had been sustained as described in paragraph 8. Subsequently, an investigation conducted by the FHP raised questions regarding the incident with Ms. Hawkins and the "work-related" cut on Respondent's arm. Lt. Baker attempted to interview Respondent regarding this investigation. Respondent declined to be interviewed and resigned from the FHP. Later, Respondent obtained a job as a security officer with the Dade County School District. Prior to his resignation from the FHP, Respondent did not claim he had cut or injured both arms on the morning of April 9, 1987. Lt. Miller did not observe a cut on Respondent's right arm on April 9, 1987. Neither Lt. Miller nor Trooper Allen, a trained traffic homicide investigator, could discover any trace evidence on Respondent's FHP vehicle to substantiate Respondent's claim regarding the cut. There were no breaks in the metal or paint along Respondent's door in the area he identified as the point of injury. There were no rough or jagged edges. The Notice of Injury signed by Respondent contained information which was false or misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the certification for a law enforcement officer held by Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 19th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Respondent's testimony and that of Mr. Black relating to the alleged wound to the right arm was not credible. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, to the extent that it relates Respondent's testimony it is correct, however, the fact it not. That is, it is found that Respondent injured his left arm at the Hawkins' home; consequently, Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent's account was not credible. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it relates the story given by Respondent; such story being deemed incredible and therefore, rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is accepted to the extent that it relates the testimony of the troopers; however, the conclusion reached is speculative and unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted; however the facts related in that form were false or misleading. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Denis Dean, Esquire Dean & Hartman, P.A. 10680 N. W. 25 Street Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Daryl McLaughlin Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 14, 1983, and November 19, 1981, and was issued certificate numbers 02-33918 and 502-868. Respondent is currently certified as a law enforcement officer and as a correctional officer by the Commission. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. On May 3, 1986, Respondent, Deputy McDonald, and their immediate supervisor Sergeant James Walkup were working a directed patrol in the south portion of Broward County, Florida. Each was in his own patrol car, but they were working as a group with the express purpose of conducting a routine harassment of known or suspected drug dealers or users in the vicinity. They spotted a rental car occupied by two black males parked in an open field in a residential neighborhood. The occupant of the vehicle in the driver's seat was Jimmy Fox, a reputed drug dealer. All three patrol cars pulled into the field behind the rental vehicle. Respondent "radioed" in that he had made a traffic stop. Neither McDonald nor Walkup radioed that they were on the scene to serve as back-up units. Deputy George Gechoff was working off-duty at the Home Depot on 58th Avenue in the west Hollywood area when he heard Respondent radio that he had made a traffic stop. Since Gechoff did not hear anyone radio that they were serving as back-up to Respondent, Gechoff drove to the location of the traffic stop which was just a few blocks away. When Gechoff arrived at the scene Respondent had already searched the front seat area of the rental vehicle and had asked Fox's permission to search the trunk. Initially, Fox refused consent to the search of the trunk of the rental vehicle. Gechoff and Fox knew each other. After Respondent assured Fox that Fox would not be arrested since the search was illegal and after Gechoff urged Fox to be cooperative, Fox consented to the request. The trunk of the car was opened, and Respondent and Gechoff began searching it. The Respondent found a pistol in the trunk and went to his patrol car to "run a check" on the gun. While Respondent was in is patrol car, Deputy Gechoff, who assisted in the search of the trunk, found an aspirin or "pill- type" bottle containing approximately 50 small objects. Although Walkup testified that the objects were square cubes of yellowish material, Gechoff testified that the objects were white chips of different sizes. At the time, Walkup, Gechoff, and Respondent each believed that the objects were "crack" cocaine. If the objects were indeed crack cocaine, each object would be a single dose of the drug, and each object would have a sale price ranging from $10 to $20. In respondent to his radio inquiry, Respondent was advised that he had a "hit" on the gun, which meant it was wanted in connection with a crime or that it had been previously reported as stolen. When Respondent communicated that information to his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Walkup, Gechoff handed Respondent the aspirin bottle. Walkup instructed Respondent to take both the firearm and the suspected cocaine and write up a "found property report." Respondent was concerned about writing a report for found property, rather than seized property, and suggested to Walkup that they simply turn the matter over to the State Attorney's Office. Walkup took the position that the property was illegally seized since there was no probable cause for the search of the vehicle and the search had taken place simply as part of an harassment operation. He instructed Respondent to report the property as "found property" and left the scene. When Respondent left the scene, he had with him both the confiscated firearm and the aspirin bottle with its contents. He remained concerned about being ordered to write a found property report, but knew he had to do something since he had already radioed in that he had recovered a firearm wanted by the Broward County sheriff's Office. On the spur of the moment, as he was driving through a wooded area near a rock pit, Respondent took the top off the bottle and threw it out the window scattering the contents as he threw away the bottle. Later that day Respondent wrote and signed an Event Report at the Broward County Sheriff's Office reporting that he had found a .44 Magnum and suspected cocaine off the roadway while on routine patrol. The firearm was turned in at the same time, and a property receipt was issued. No property receipt was issued for the suspected cocaine. Several weeks later, Sergeant Walkup received a telephone call from Fox concerning the incident on May 3. In response to that telephone call, Walkup retrieved and reviewed Respondent's report of the May 3 incident with Fox. Upon reviewing the report, Walkup became concerned with the apparent conflicts between the report's contents and his recollection of the events. He so notified his supervisor. On July 1, 1986, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Roger Lekutis of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Internal Affairs Unit. He admitted that after he drove away from the scene of the Fox "traffic stop" he threw the bottle which he believed contained cocaine "rocks" out the window of his patrol car. He told Lekutis that Walkup had instructed him to write a report of the incident as a "found property" report. He also admitted failing to turn over the suspected cocaine to an evidence custodian. No evidence was offered suggesting that Respondent disposed of the suspected cocaine in a manner different than throwing it out the window as he drove through the wooded area near the rock pit, and the Respondent's testimony in that regard is credited. Since this incident, Respondent has been reinstated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office but was not yet on the payroll by the time of the final hearing in this cause, since he was undergoing certain pre-employment certification and testing procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1989. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 88-4963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13-17, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4, 7, 11, 12, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the law enforcement officer's certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, based on two incidents of misconduct. A third incident alleged in the second unnumbered paragraph of paragraph two of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed at the beginning of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas R. Small was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer before the occurrence of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint was filed after a letter of complaint was received from a citizen in April, 1985. This delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission staff accounts for the delay in the filing of the complaint. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Albert Lee Taylor, his wife and their three small children, were leaving Miami in the family car which was being driven by Mr. Taylor. They were on their way to visit a sick relative in Lake Placid, Florida. Due to Mr. Taylor's work schedule they were unable to begin their trip until after midnight. The Taylors are black. The Respondent, Mr. Small, was a police officer for the City of Hialeah Gardens. He observed the Taylor vehicle as it passed his police car at the corner of N.W. 81st Street and l03rd Avenue. Mr. Small pulled Mr. Taylor's vehicle over because he believed there were deficiencies in the tag light on the car. When Mr. Small left the patrol car and walked to Mr. Taylor's car, he told Mr. Taylor to get out of the car and walk to the back of Taylor's vehicle, which Mr. Taylor did. While using his flashlight, Mr. Small observed a handgun setting in an area between the bucket seats of Taylor's automobile. Mr. Small took possession of the gun. Mr. Taylor carried the gun for protection during the family's travel. Mr. Small arrested Mr. Taylor and while doing so required him to place his hands on the hood of the police car to conduct a pat- down search of Mr. Taylor. The police car engine was running. The hood of the police car was hot to the touch which made it difficult for Mr. Taylor to take the position which Mr. Small required him to assume. Small told Mr. Taylor to spread his legs so that he could be patted-down. Mr. Taylor had recently had hip surgery to replace the ball joint of his hip with an artificial joint. This restricted his range of motion and any attempt to move the leg beyond its range resulted in severe pain. Mr. Taylor spread his legs as far as his hip condition would permit without pain. Mr. Small became dissatisfied with Mr. Taylor's stance and told him to spread his legs more. Mr. Taylor told Mr. Small that he had already spread his legs as far apart as he could with a pin in his hip. Mr. Taylor's wife, who was near by, told Mr. Small that she was a nurse, that Mr. Taylor had a pin in his hip, and that he could spread his legs no further apart. Mr. Small told Mrs. Taylor to "shut up" and shouted that he did not care about that. Mr. Small took his leg and placed it between Mr. Taylor's feet and, by pushing outward, forced Mr. Taylor's legs further apart. Mr. Taylor lost his balance and, as a result of the action, fell on the hood of the car. This caused Mr. Taylor severe pain at the time and resulted in increased pain and tenderness in the leg for several weeks. Mr. Small took Mr. Taylor to jail. Mr. Taylor was never convicted of any crime as the result of that arrest. The next incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on October 24, 1981, when Mr. Small was a uniformed officer for the City of Opa- Locka. Mr. Small had been sent to the scene of a disturbance near Rutland Street and 22nd Avenue. Rayfield Brown, Lloyd Johnson, and his two-year old daughter Fiona were there. Mr. Small and other officers arrived and Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were arrested and placed in Mr. Small's police car. After the arrest Mr. Small got into the police car to drive Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown to the police station. On the way to the police station, Mr. Small turned onto Rutland Street. Mr. Brown looked at the sidewalk on the street corner and saw Mr. Johnson's child, Fiona, standing alone on the sidewalk and crying. Mr. Johnson saw his daughter as they passed the corner and asked Mr. Small to stop the car and pick the child up. Mr. Johnson pleaded with Mr. Small to pick up his daughter so that she would not be left alone on the street but Mr. Small did not stop to attend to the child or take any other action to assure that another officer would take care of the child, thus leaving her abandoned in a urban residential area.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the law enforcement officer certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2383 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The substance of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent No proposed findings of fact were submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter Kneski, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 626 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a),2 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-20.0012(2)(f),3 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Taylor was certified by the Commission on March 21, 1990 and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 75624. On May 12, 1999, Mr. Taylor was issued Instructor Certificate No. 212961. On August 7, 2005, Mr. Taylor went to the house where his sister, Michelle Taylor (Ms. Taylor), and her boyfriend, Dean Radney (Mr. Radney), were living. Mr. Taylor owned the house and was allowing his sister to live in the house. Mr. Taylor had been drinking heavily and was intoxicated when he went to his sister’s home. An argument ensued between Mr. Taylor and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor called 911 and requested the Holmes County Sheriff’s Department to intervene. Ms. Taylor felt that if she called the sheriff that Mr. Taylor would leave. Mr. Taylor did leave the house. Deputy Michael Raley came to the residence in response to Ms. Taylor’s call. When Deputy Raley arrived, James Taylor, the brother of Mr. and Ms. Taylor, was at the home. James Taylor told his sister not to press charges against Mr. Taylor. Deputy Raley asked James Taylor to leave, and James Taylor complied with the request. When Deputy Raley arrived at the home of Ms. Taylor, she was upset and told him that there had been a family dispute. Deputy Raley asked Ms. Taylor to walk him through the house, and she did. At the back door, Deputy Raley observed that the back door facing had been damaged. He saw a nine millimeter shell casing lying on the floor of a rear room. There was a bullet hole in the bathroom door and a fragmented bullet in the laundry hamper. Ms. Taylor told Deputy Raley that there was a bullet hole in the living room/kitchen area. He went to that part of the house and saw a nine millimeter shell casing lying on the kitchen floor and a hole in the window. Deputy Raley took a sworn statement from Ms. Taylor, but the statement was not submitted for introduction into evidence. Although Ms. Taylor called 911 to summon assistance, the tape of the 911 call was not submitted for introduction into evidence. At the final hearing, Ms. Taylor stated that she had just come home from a drug rehabilitation facility when Mr. Taylor came to her home, that she was under a lot of stress, and that she did not remember what happened except that she and her brother argued, and she called 911 for assistance. At the final hearing, Mr. Taylor testified that on the day of incident in question, he was too drunk to remember what happened. Other than hearsay testimony, there is no evidence to support the allegations that Mr. Taylor committed assault and battery against his sister or Mr. Radney or that he fired a gun in his sister’s home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Taylor did not violate Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a), 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-20.0012(1)(f), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 3rd day of January, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marcel C. Johnson, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0235217 on March 2, 1982 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until 1985 or early 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about April 15, 1986 Johnson pled nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance - cocaine, a third degree felony. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Johnson was placed on three years' probation and required to perform 150 hours of community service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0235217 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Marcel C. Johnson 2105 Northwest 56th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 200857, issued to her by Petitioner. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., on January 8, 2005, Corporal Andrew Markham of the City of Sebring Police Department was dispatched to the scene of a reported traffic crash at the intersection of Center Street and Northeast Lakeview Drive in Sebring, Florida. Corporal Markham found no vehicles in the intersection or any evidence of a crash there. Adjacent to the intersection, in the parking lot of the Sebring Public Library, Corporal Markham saw a car with its brake lights illuminated. He approached the car to determine whether the occupants could provide any information about the reported traffic accident. Corporal Markham observed that the front of the car was damaged from its collision with a low barrier wall that bordered the parking lot. The windshield was also damaged from what Corporal Markham concluded was the impact of the occupants' heads with the windshield when the car hit the barrier. When Corporal Markham approached the car, he saw Respondent exit the driver's seat and begin to walk away. Corporal Markham stopped Respondent to speak with her. Respondent had blood on her face, as did the other occupant of the car. At the time of the incident, Respondent denied being the driver of the car. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she was the driver. During his conversation with Respondent at the scene, Corporal Markham smelled the odor of alcohol on Respondent, noted that she was unsteady, and that her eyes were red. When Corporal Markham asked Respondent to take field sobriety tests, she continued to insist that she was not the driver of the car and would not take the tests. Based on his observations at the scene, his training, and his 13 years of experience as a police officer, Corporal Markham believed Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. Therefore, he arrested Respondent for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. Corporal Markham first transported Respondent to the Highlands County Medical Center to receive treatment for her injury. At the Medical Center, Respondent refused medical treatment, and Corporal Markham transported her to the Highlands County Jail. At the jail, Respondent was taken to the area where breath tests are conducted. Corporal Markham read Respondent the "Implied Consent" that informed her that if she refused to take the test, she could lose her driving privilege for up to one year. Respondent refused to take a breath test at the jail. Deputy Loran Danielson of the Highlands County Sheriff's Office was the officer on duty to conduct the breath tests at the jail. When Deputy Danielson met Respondent, he noted that her breath smelled strongly of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and she was unsteady on her feet. Based on his observations of Respondent, his training, and his 10 years of experience as a Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Danielson was of the opinion that Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. During the time that Deputy Danielson talked to Respondent, she told him that she had consumed "many" drinks, and if she took the breath test, it would show "I'm drunk." On September 27, 2004, less than four months before the incident at issue in this case, Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgement for an earlier driving under the influence (DUI) violation by Respondent. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she had "a few drinks" with friends at a bar just prior to her arrest, but she denied that she was intoxicated. Respondent said the crash occurred because she had taken her eyes off the road to speak to passengers in the back seat. Respondent said she refused to take the field sobriety tests or the breath test at the jail because she was scared. Respondent explained that one term of her probation for the prior DUI conviction was that she was not to drink alcohol. Respondent expressed remorse for her behavior on January 8, 2005, and claimed she has stopped drinking alcohol. Respondent stated that her career as a correctional officer is very important to her, and she requested another opportunity to prove she is a responsible person and capable correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Tena D. Grant failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and ordering that her certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on September 22, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 73974. At all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as a law enforcement officer holding the rank of lieutenant. On July 12, 2004, while operating a patrol vehicle, Putnam County Deputy Sheriff Michael Kelly backed the vehicle and accidentally struck a second patrol vehicle issued to another Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, Robert Younis.1 At the time Deputy Kelly struck the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis, Deputy Kelly was traveling approximately two miles per hour. As a result of the collision, both vehicles were slightly damaged with the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis sustaining a small indentation on the left front fender. Shortly after the collision and on the same date, Deputy Kelly contacted his supervisor, Sergeant Michael Oglesbee, and verbally reported the incident to him. On November 8, 2004, Deputy Kelly arranged for the damage to the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis to be repaired at Deputy Kelly's own expense, at a local automotive repair shop, One Stop Auto Body. On November 16, 2004, Putnam County Sheriff's Office Captain Rick Ryan was present at One Stop Auto Body and observed the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis under repair. Prior to this observation, Captain Ryan had not been aware of the damage or the repairs being made to the patrol vehicle. On November 23, 2004, Deputy Kelly submitted a written report regarding the collision incident to the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. On November 30, 2004, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Rick Lashley of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as part of an internal investigation. Facts determined by the evidence presented Although Sheriff's Office policy required him to do so, Deputy Kelly did not submit a written report about the incident at the time he reported the incident to Sergeant Oblesbee. Shortly after calling Sergeant Oglesbee, Deputy Kelly then called Deputy Younis to inform him of the incident. Because the damage to the vehicles was insignificant, Deputy Kelly did not immediately take steps to get the vehicles repaired. Deputy Kelly did not attempt to get the vehicles repaired until the matter was brought to his attention by Sergeant Oglesbee in November. He then took steps to get the vehicles repaired at his own expense. Deputy Kelly believed that it was his responsibility to pay for the amount of the insurance deductible. Deputies Kelly and Younis took their patrol vehicles to One Stop Auto Body for repair. At the time of the incident, Respondent was a candidate for Sheriff of Putnam County. Because he was involved in his political campaign, Respondent was often off duty and difficult to reach. Respondent was not on duty the day of the incident. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard Ryan was a captain with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office and was chief of patrol. On November 16, 2004, he went to One Stop Auto Body to get estimates on a patrol car repair. While there, he noticed another patrol car there for repairs. He had been unaware that another patrol car had received damage. He determined that the patrol car was assigned to Deputy Younis. Upon determining that the patrol car belonged to Deputy Younis, he called Sergeant Oglesbee to inquire as to why Deputy Younis's patrol car was in the repair shop. Upon learning that Sergeant Oglesbee knew about the damage, he called a meeting in his office that afternoon. Captain Ryan, Sergeant Oglesbee, Lieutenant Bowling, Deputies Younis and Kelly, and Respondent were present. Deputy Kelly does not recall any formal or informal discussion of the incident with Respondent until the November 18, 2004 meeting. According to Captain Ryan, Respondent told him at the meeting that Respondent learned of the incident a couple of weeks before. Captain Ryan worked with Respondent for between 16 and 17 years, and never had reason to disbelieve or doubt what Respondent said. As a result of the meeting, Captain Ryan instructed Respondent to write Sergeant Oglesbee a memorandum of record for not following policy, instructed Sergeant Oglesbee to write Deputy Kelly a memorandum of record for not following policy, and determined that he, Captain Ryan, would write a memorandum of record regarding Respondent. On November 17, 2004, Captain Ryan learned that Sheriff Douglas ordered Lieutenant Bowling to initiate an administrative inquiry. Lieutenant Bowling instructed Deputy Kelly, Sergeant Oglesbee, and Respondent to each write a statement of their recollection as to what happened regarding the incident. The matter was than turned over to Mr. Lashley to conduct an investigation. On December 2, 2004, Lieutenant Bowling wrote a memorandum to Lieutenant Rick Lashley regarding what was said by whom at the November 16, 2004, meeting. His memorandum described Respondent's response as learning about the incident "a week or two ago." This is substantially consistent with Captain Ryan's recollection of what was said at the meeting. Lieutenant Lashley was with the personnel office of the Sheriff's Office and was the internal affairs investigator. During questioning by Lieutenant Lashley, Respondent realized that he had been told about the incident in October, after a truancy roundup, rather than November, and acknowledged this during his interview. This is consistent with Deputy Younis's recollection that he did not discuss the incident with Respondent until a "truancy roundup" which took place sometime in October.2 Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern was not that Respondent recalled during the interview that he learned of the incident in October rather than November. Lashley commented, "Well, first he had told us in November...and then he told me in October, which is okay, you know. I mean, because people do start recalling stuff." While Lieutenant Lashley described Respondent's initial confusion as to whether or not he learned of the incident in October or November as "just inconsistencies," Lashley's real concern was whether or not Respondent actually learned of the incident around the time that it happened (July 2004). Consistent with Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern, Respondent was charged with making a false statement under oath on November 30, 2004, during the interview with Lieutenant Lashley. The key to the charge is whether Sergeant Oglesbee actually contacted Respondent shortly after the incident happened as opposed to learning about it in the fall. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled attempting to call Respondent the day of the incident using Nextel, but could not recall the substance of the conversation. When asked whether he was certain as to whether he actually reached Respondent, he responded: Q Okay, and from your testimony, I take it that you are not a hundred percent sure that you actually did contact Lieutenant Hardy? A I'm testifying on my past practice. Q Okay. But you don't have any specific recollection of speaking with him about this incident? A I cannot recall the conversation. Q And you could not swear to actually having notified him in July when this incident happened? A Just based on past practice, that it was--it would have been deemed by myself a very important issue, based upon his major supporters having been involved in a minor fender bender, but yet based upon the political atmosphere, it would have been considered a major incident. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled that there were several informal conversations regarding the incident but he did not recall Respondent's ever being present during any of them. He also acknowledged that Respondent was often unavailable for several days at a time during his campaign for Sheriff. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled a telephone or Nextel conversation with Respondent towards the end of October during which Respondent commented that Deputy Younis's patrol car needed to get repaired. When asked during his interview with Lieutenant Lashley, during which he was under oath, when he was first made aware of the incident, Respondent answered in pertinent part as follows: Hardy: Going back listening to these tapes, going back to the truancy roundup, that's when I believe I was first made aware of the dent on the vehicle, was because I observed it and I asked where the dent came from and when the deputy explained it to me, I asked if it had been reported because I was concerned about the time line. He said he reported it to Sgt. Oglesbee. I said get with Sgt. Oglesbee and let's get it taken care of. Lashley: That was during the truancy roundup, correct? Hardy: Correct. Lashley: ...or detail, back in first week in October? Hardy: That's, that's, that's where I, I remember it. Uh, I remember that it was in East Palatka, so it was at the truancy roundup, it would have to be. Lashley: Would it be safe to say that Younis and Kelly were the ones that told you of it then or, is that who you said... Hardy: It would probably have been Younis because it was his vehicle that had the damage to it, that I observed. So he had to have been there because it was his car.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Hardy. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 23rd day of December, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 14, 2000, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers. Subsection 943.12(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer on May 8, 1992, and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 35929. Respondent was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 149629 on February 13, 1995. Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff when the events in controversy took place. On July 12, 1997, Respondent was on duty and dispatched to 802 Bama Road in Brandon to conduct a criminal investigation of vandalism to an automobile. The complainant was Joseph Ouellette, owner of the vehicle. All of the windows of the car had been smashed out, and there was damage to the hood of the car. On the scene, Respondent interviewed Mr. Ouellette, his daughter Jennifer Ouellette, and Mary Miller, Ms. Ouellette's grandmother, all of whom listed 802 Bama Road as their address of residence. Respondent took photographs of the damaged vehicle and obtained written witness statements from Ms. Ouellette and Ms. Miller. Based upon the information he received on the scene, Respondent proceeded to the residence of Erron Matthews, in order to arrest him. Mr. Matthews was not at home. Respondent arrested Mr. Matthews two days later. On July 12, 1997, Respondent filed an Incident Report and a document titled "Criminal Report Affidavit/Notice to Appear." The former document contained Respondent's narrative of his investigation and the written witness statements. The latter document, sworn to by Respondent as to its correctness, summarized Respondent's investigation, concluded that Mr. Matthews was the perpetrator, and charged Mr. Matthews with felony criminal mischief. Mr. Ouellette was listed as the complainant because he owned the damaged vehicle. Though Mr. Ouellette owned the vehicle, the witnesses referred to it as his daughter's car. Mr. Ouellette did not witness the damage being done. Ms. Ouellette also did not witness the damage being done to the vehicle. Her statement detailed an altercation she had with Mr. Matthews earlier in the evening at a friend's house, which culminated in Mr. Matthews making repeated threats to "kick my ass, or do some damage." Ms. Ouellette stated that she went home and went to bed, but was awakened by noises outside the house. She got up and went to the front door. She heard a car speeding away, then went outside to find that her car had been vandalized. Ms. Miller's written statement was as follows, without correction: I was awakened by unexplained sounds from outside my apartment around 4:15 a.m. I got up & looked out my window which looks out on the drive-way. I saw a young man dressed in shorts & white t-shirt baseball bat breaking out the windshield of my grand-daughters car. He had a white bat in his hands, larger than standard baseball bat hitting and shattering the windshield. I never saw him hit the windows only the windshield. He suddenly turned & ran & I heard car start up but did not see the car. I went & informed my daughter next door to my apartment. Ms. Miller's written statement gives no indication that she knew the identity of the perpetrator, though the physical description generally matched that of Mr. Matthews. Respondent's Incident Report states that Ms. Miller told him that "she looked outside of her bedroom window and observed SP Erron Matthews breaking the windows of the car with a bat or an ax handle." Respondent's sworn Criminal Report Affidavit states, "The witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator." Ms. Miller was the only witness to the vandalism, thus the only person who would have been in a position to identify Mr. Matthews as the perpetrator. At some point after the incident and before Mr. Matthews' scheduled trial, Ms. Miller suffered a debilitating stroke. Terri Oster, the prosecutor, interviewed family members, all of whom asked that she not press Ms. Miller to attempt to testify. Ms. Oster testified that her reading of Ms. Miller's statement and her conversations with the family led her to conclude that Ms. Miller did not identify Mr. Matthews as the perpetrator. In particular, Ms. Ouellette told Ms. Oster that her grandmother had never met Mr. Matthews and did not know his name. On November 19, 1997, Respondent gave a sworn deposition at the instance of Mr. Matthews' defense counsel. Ms. Oster was also present at the deposition. During the course of the deposition, Respondent unequivocally testified that Mr. Matthews admitted the crime during the ride to the police station after Respondent placed him under arrest: Q. When you picked him up two days later did he make stay [sic] statements to you? A. Yes, he did. He made a spontaneous statement that he did the damage to the car. And I specifically told him that he didn’t have to say anything because I hadn’t Mirandized him yet, all right? Q. So -– A. But he apparently has a friend that is a son of a deputy, and the deputy had advised him to go ahead and admit to the crime. He was thinking it was a misdemeanor criminal mischief, which it was a felony criminal mischief. Q. Right. A. But he admitted to me that he had done the damage. * * * Q. Okay, when did he make the statement to you? A. He was in the back seat of my car. * * * Q. So during these questions that he is asking you at what point does he make the statement? A. He made the statement even before he started asking the questions about the legal process, because he assumed that all he was being charged with was misdemeanor criminal mischief based on what his friend hold [sic] him who was the son of a deputy. Q. So he is engaging in conversation relating to the legal process and stuff, makes this statement. And, again, what is the statement? A. That he, in fact, did the damage to the vehicle. Q. So he told you, "I damaged the vehicle." A. Uh-huh. Q. Anything else? A. (Witness shook head side to side.) Q. Then what do you say to him at that point? A. That he didn’t have to say anything else. Q. So he didn’t proceed to tell you why or anything like that? A. No. He didn’t give me a reason. * * * Q. Do you ever take him by Ms. Miller for her to identify him? A. No. Q. Did you do anything else in the course of your investigation? A. That was the end of it. Q. Just so I get this straight, Jennifer and Joseph did not see anything? A. No. Q. Jennifer based it on the earlier confrontation? A. Yes. Q. Mary Miller gave you the description; a general description? A. Yes. Q. You picked up Erron Matthews at his home at 2:00 a.m. He makes a spontaneous statement to you. And then he is read his Miranda rights at the transport sight [sic]. A. Yes. Q. Did I miss anything? A. No. That is pretty much it. Despite the lack of an eyewitness able to identify Mr. Matthews as the perpetrator, and despite learning that Mr. Matthews intended to produce alibi witnesses placing him elsewhere at the time of the crime, Ms. Oster decided that she had enough evidence to take the case to trial. Her basis for this decision was the fact that Mr. Matthews had admitted to Respondent that he committed the crime. On March 9, 1998, two days before the trial, Ms. Oster followed her normal routine, contacting her witnesses to make sure they were aware of the trial date and were available at the prescribed time. Ms. Oster spoke to Respondent. She testified that he asked why the case was going to trial in light of Mr. Matthews' admission that he committed the crime. Ms. Oster testified that Respondent gave her no indication there was a problem with proceeding to trial. On March 10, 1998, Ms. Oster met with Respondent to go over the questions she would ask him at the trial. When she asked Respondent whether the defendant made any statements, Respondent paused, then answered in the negative. Ms. Oster then refreshed Respondent's recollection with the questions and answers from his deposition concerning Mr. Matthews' admission. After this prompting, Respondent confirmed that the deposition was correct and that Mr. Matthews had admitted to the crime. On March 11, 1998, the morning of the trial, Ms. Oster met all of her witnesses at the state attorney's office. She separated them, and gave each witness a copy of his or her deposition to read before the case was called for hearing. She gave Respondent a copy of his deposition. At that point, Respondent told Ms. Oster that his deposition testimony was not entirely accurate. She asked him what he meant. Respondent told her that Mr. Matthews did not admit doing the damage to the vehicle. Ms. Oster went over the deposition with Respondent and asked him why it said something different than what he was now telling her. After a lengthy pause, Respondent told her that he arrested Mr. Matthews and told him why he was being arrested, and that Mr. Matthews did not deny doing the damage. Respondent told Ms. Oster that he took Mr. Matthews' silence as an admission. Ms. Oster conferred with her supervisor, to get a second opinion on how to proceed with the case. The supervisor, Nick Nazaretian, met with Respondent and discussed the discrepancy between his deposition testimony and his current statements. Ms. Oster and Mr. Nazaretian then conferred and decided, based on the other facts of the case and the defendant’s having alibi witnesses, that they could not go forward with the case. Ms. Oster entered a notice of nolle prosequi and the court dismissed the charges against Mr. Matthews. At the hearing in the instant case, Respondent testified that when Ms. Oster interviewed him on March 11, he simply could not recall whether Mr. Matthews had made spontaneous statements about doing the damage to the vehicle. Respondent’s testimony is not credible on this point. Respondent’s deposition testimony states that Mr. Matthews affirmatively admitted to the crime. Ms. Oster testified that if Respondent’s problem had been a simple failure of memory, she could have taken steps to place his deposition testimony on the record and thereby save her case against Mr. Matthews. However, Ms. Oster stated that Respondent told her that Mr. Matthews did not affirmatively admit to the crime. Thus, Respondent’s deposition testimony was not credible and Ms. Oster could not ethically attempt to place it on the record, leaving her no choice but to dismiss the case. Ms. Oster's testimony as to the events of March 11, 1998, is credited. Respondent's false version of his encounter with Mr. Matthews on July 12, 1997, given under oath, was a statement that Respondent did not believe to be true when he gave it. Respondent’s deposition testimony was material to the case against Mr. Matthews, intended to mislead his superiors and the state attorney’s office. Respondent’s actions in this instance demonstrate a lack of good moral character. Respondent’s statement that Ms. Miller identified Mr. Matthews as the perpetrator was probably untrue, but the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent made the statement with the intent to mislead his superiors or the state attorney’s office. Ms. Miller was unavailable to give her version of the conversation with Respondent, so there was no direct evidence to contradict Respondent's statement. Even if Ms. Miller did not tell Respondent that Mr. Matthews was the perpetrator, it cannot be said with the requisite degree of certainty that Respondent made his statement in the Criminal Report Affidavit with the intent to mislead the public servants involved. It is plausible that Respondent wrote his affidavit as a form of shorthand, given that he had already concluded that Mr. Matthews was the perpetrator and that Ms. Miller’s physical description generally matched that of Mr. Matthews.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint as they relate to his deposition testimony of November 19, 1997, and revoking Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 6th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey A. Blau, Esquire 1511 South Church Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 Phillip W. Lindley, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
