The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer and a certified instructor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued November 16, 2004, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer and as an instructor. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Indian River Correctional Institution (IRCI) with the rank of Major. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ken Torres was employed by the DOC at IRCI with the rank of Lieutenant. On June 11, 2003, Tvaris Burch, Errol Whiley, and Keith Conley were inmates at IRCI. At no time did any of these three inmates have authorization to be in Respondent’s office at IRCI. The only door to Respondent’s office opens to a long hallway. This door is normally locked. At approximately 6:15 p.m. on June 11, 2003, Respondent entered his office at IRCI and was followed by Lt. Torres. Respondent and Lt. Torres saw three inmates on the floor attempting to hide under Respondent’s desk. Each inmate attempted to conceal his identity by pulling his tee shirt up over his head. It is undisputed that both Respondent and Lt. Torres ordered the three inmates to come out from under the desk and the inmates refused those orders. It is also undisputed that the inmates came out from under the desk after Respondent threatened to order Lt. Torres to spray them with chemical agents. What happened next is the center of the dispute in this proceeding. Petitioner alleged that Respondent kicked one of the inmates and that he kicked and punched another inmate as they came out from under his desk. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent failed to file a mandatory Use of Force Report and that he lied to an investigator (Mr. Glover) in a sworn statement. Respondent asserted that he did not kick or otherwise use unauthorized force against any of the three inmates, that he had no reason to file a use of force report, and that he did not lie to the investigator. In support of its allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of inmate Burch, Mr. Glover, and Lt. Torres. In addition, Petitioner presented the investigative report prepared by Mr. Glover and certain affidavits gathered by Mr. Glover during the course of his investigation. The following facts are not in dispute. After the three inmates came out from under the desk and were on their feet, they were ordered to remove the tee shirts from their heads and were identified as being inmates Burch, Whiley, and Conley. They were stripped searched by Respondent and Lt. Torres and contraband was removed from them. Additional security was called and took the three inmates to the prison nurse for a pre-confinement physical. This type medical examination is mandatory for an inmate about to be confined for disciplinary purposes. The inmates did not complain to anyone that they had been injured or mistreated by Respondent or by anyone else. The nurses noted no injury on any of the inmates. The three inmates were then confined for disciplinary reasons. An incident report was written and a Disciplinary Report was filed for each of the three inmates. Neither Respondent nor Lt. Torres filed a Use of Force Report, which is a mandatory report after physical force is used against an inmate. On June 12, 2003, approximately 24 hours after the incident in Respondent’s office, both inmate Burch and inmate Whiley declared a medical emergency. Both inmates were promptly taken to the medial unit and examined by prison nurses. Inmate Burch told nurse Rhea Harris that he had been injured by being kicked in the head, but he would not identify the person who kicked him. At the final hearing, inmate Burch testified that Respondent kicked him in the head as he was coming out from under the desk and in the knee when he tried to stand up. He further testified that the blow to the knee caused him to fall to the floor, which broke his glasses. Ms. Harris observed a bump on the side of inmate Burch’s head that could be consistent with inmate Burch’s being kicked.5 Inmate Whiley was seen by Nurse Debra Barriner on June 11 and June 12, 2003. On June 12, 2003, inmate Whiley told Ms. Barriner that he had a sore neck and a sore area on his face on the left cheek. Ms. Barriner observed areas of slight swelling and discoloration that were consistent with inmate Whiley’s complaints. Inmate Whiley refused to tell the nurse what caused his neck and left cheek to become sore. In an affidavit subsequently secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Whiley alleged that Respondent had kicked him as he was coming out from under the desk and hit him in the stomach after he stood up. In an affidavit secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Conley stated that he was not struck by Respondent on June 11, 2003, but that he saw Respondent strike inmates Burch and Whiley. Approximately a week after the incident in Respondent’s office, corrections officers intercepted a note being passed from the cell of inmates Burch and Whiley to the cell of inmate Conley. This note was turned over to Lt. Torres, who was the shift supervisor, who testified that he threw the note away and could not recall its details. Lt. Torres did recall that the note made a reference to his being promoted as a result of the allegations that had been made against Respondent. In a sworn interview given to Mr. Glover, Lt. Torres stated that he saw Respondent kick inmates Burch and Whiley. He repeated that statement at the formal hearing. On closer examination, Lt. Torres testified that he did not witness Respondent make physical contact with any of the inmates, but that he saw him making kicking motions in the directions of the inmates. On further examination, the following exchange occurred between Petitioner’s counsel and Lt. Torres beginning at page 85, line 22 of the Transcript: Q. Let me ask you this: If you did not see Major Passino actually strike an inmate, why then did you feel that it was necessary to report such an incident.[6] A. Why did I feel that? That’s my responsibility. Q. At the time that this incident occurred, why did you consider that there had been a use of force. A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Only because of what the inmates said, that they were injured, did I suspect that there was a use of force. Q. And that was only after the inmates had declared a medical emergency – A. Yes, sir. Respondent’s testimony that he did not use unauthorized force against inmates Burch and Whiley is found to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent battered inmate Burch or Whiley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of, June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are inmates presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a prison facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. The superintendent of Polk Correctional Institution issued a directive, which is dated February 18, 1982, and entitled "Interoffice Memorandum". The memorandum is directed to all inmates and relates to visiting procedures. It provides: Effective Saturday, March 6, 1982, inmates will no longer be permitted to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week. Visiting policy in the past has permitted inmates to receive visits on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week, but not from the same visitor. This change means that you must receive all your visitors on either Saturday or Sunday. If your (sic) receive a visit on Saturday, you will not be permitted to receive another visit on Sunday. This change in visiting procedure will help alleviate the overcrowded situation in the visitor's park and allow you and your family to visit together more comfortably. The memorandum applies only within Polk Correctional Institution. It was issued by the superintendent without any effort being made to promulgate it as a rule. No effort was made to publish notice, to give affected persons an opportunity to be heard, nor to conduct hearings and allow input from members of the public. The superintendent did not construe the memorandum as being a rule. He considered it authorized under the provisions of Section 945.21, Florida Statutes; Department of Corrections Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code; and Department of Corrections "Policy and Procedure Directive" Number 3.04.12, which was issued April 8, 1981. Rule 33-5.01 provides: The Secretary shall authorize each Superintendent to adopt policies stating the conditions and circumstances under which visits may be conducted including: the regular visiting hours of the insti- tution; the items which visitors may take in or out of an institution, and what items are contraband; what persons or groups may visit, and in what numbers; and the specific standards of conduct which shall prevail during such visits. All visiting policies promulgated by the Superintendents shall be subject to approval by the Secretary. Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 provides at Paragraph V.A. 1: Visiting days shall normally be designated as Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Where unusual circum- stances occur, additional days may be designated for visiting. Institutions are authorized to restrict visiting to one of these days; or when facilities permit, visiting may be permitted more than one day. The directive provides at Paragraph V.B.: There is no limit on the number of individuals that may visit an inmate on any particular visiting day other than those restrictions imposed regarding limited space at each institution. Each institution is authorized to place a limitation when physical facilities are restrictive. However, reasonableness should be exercised when possible in regard to the number of visitors that would be permitted. Those institutions restricting visits to either Saturday or Sunday, but not both, may permit special exception in the case of those individuals that have traveled a significant dis- tance, especially when such visits are on an infrequent basis. This policy directive has not been promulgated as a rule. It is not published in the Florida Administrative Code, does not bear a numerical designation that accords with rules of the Department of State, and appears to have been adopted on authority of Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.02(), 33-3.06, and 33-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of these rules sets out visiting conditions with the specificity found in the policy and procedure directive. Prior to the March 6, 1982 effective date of the Superintendent's memorandum, which is the basis for this proceeding, inmates at Polk Correctional Institution were allowed to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday. This prior policy was based upon memoranda that had been issued by the superintendent in the same manner as the February 18, 1982 memorandum.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since August 10, 1988, certified by the Commission as a correctional officer. He holds certificate number A86-502-07. Respondent has spent his entire career as a correctional officer with the Metro-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (hereinafter referred to as "Metro"). He currently holds the rank of corporal. On June 26, 1989, Respondent was a Correctional Officer I and assigned to the third floor of Metro's Pre-Trial Detention Center, which is also known as the Main Jail. He worked the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift that day. During the eight month period prior to June 26, 1989, Respondent served as the acting supervisor of the third floor of the Main Jail during his shift. June 26, 1989, was Corporal Darlene Beasley's first day as the Main Jail's new third floor supervisor during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. Respondent was one of the officer's under her supervision that day. On June 26, 1989, the third floor of the Main Jail housed approximately 220 inmates in three separate wings, "A" Wing, "B" Wing and "C" Wing. John Breedlove was one of these inmates. Breedlove was 19 years old. His height was approximately five feet, eight inches. His weight was approximately 210 pounds. Breedlove had the privilege of being a trustee. Consequently, his cell was in "B" Wing, which housed all of the trustees on the floor. Trustees are inmates who are given various tasks to perform in and around the Main Jail. They perform these tasks under the supervision of a Labor Supervisor and receive monetary compensation and gain time for their services. As a general rule, trustees are accompanied to and from their work assignments by their Labor Supervisor, who signs them out when he or she takes them from the floor and signs them back in when he or she returns them to the floor. Sometimes, however, a staff member other than a Labor Supervisor will assume the responsibility of escorting trustees to and from their work assignments. Escorting trustees to and from their work assignments lessens the likelihood that they will be successful in any efforts they may make while they are out of their cells to obtain contraband and distribute the contraband to other inmates at the facility. On June 26, 1989, Breedlove was assigned trustee duty in the rear lobby of the Main Jail, which is located on the first floor of the facility. The work was to be performed during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift that day under the supervision of Labor Supervisor Ricardo Gibson. Gibson signed Breedlove out at the beginning of the shift and escorted him to his work assignment on the first floor. Sometime thereafter Breedlove asked Gibson if he could return to the third floor to get a haircut and take care of some laundry. Gibson replied that Breedlove could do so, but only after he had completed his work assignment. Later that day, after he had done some, but not all, of the work he had been assigned, Breedlove encountered Beasley, who was on the first floor to obtain information concerning the whereabouts of certain inmates assigned to her floor. Breedlove told Beasley that he had completed his work assignment and requested that she escort him to the third floor. Beasley complied with Breedlove's request. Respondent had just finished giving the inmates in "A" Wing their dinner meal when he noticed Breedlove sitting on a bench outside the attorney interview rooms located on the third floor. Respondent asked Breedlove what he was doing there. Breedlove responded that he had returned to the floor to get a haircut and to do his laundry. Respondent admonished Breedlove for being on the floor and instructed him to return to his work assignment. Respondent thereupon continued his feeding of the inmates on the floor. After he had delivered to the inmates in "B" Wing their dinner meal, Respondent again saw Breedlove outside the attorney interview rooms. Respondent asked Breedlove what he was still doing there and reminded him that he had been told to return to his work assignment. Gibson then arrived on the scene. He too admonished Breedlove for leaving his work assignment. After Gibson arrived, Respondent continued his feeding of the inmates on the floor. After he finished feeding the inmates in "C" Wing, Respondent observed that, notwithstanding his and Gibson's prior admonishments, Breedlove was still on the floor. Respondent approached Breedlove and asked him why he had not followed his instructions to leave the floor and return to his work assignment. Breedlove's response was that Beasley had brought him back to the floor. Respondent then went to speak about the matter with Beasley, who was doing paperwork in the control booth on the floor. The control booth is a secure enclosed area situated adjacent to the third floor lobby where the elevators are located. It is constructed of concrete, concrete block, one quarter inch thick polished wire glass and steel mesh. Manning the control booth is a Correctional Aide, who from his vantage point in the front of the booth can look through the glass and observe activity that is taking place in the lobby area of the floor as well as on the corridors of all three wings of the floor. Correctional Aide Harold McCartney was manning the control booth during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on June 26, 1989. Beasley was seated at a desk behind McCartney. Respondent walked up to Beasley and asked her if she had brought Breedlove back up to the floor. Beasley indicated that she had. Respondent and Beasley then discussed the matter further. The discussion resulted in Beasley agreeing to take Breedlove back downstairs to the rear lobby to finish his work assignment. She thereupon retrieved Breedlove. She then walked to the elevators on the floor. Breedlove followed behind her. Correctional Aide Gregory McKenzie was also waiting for an elevator to go downstairs. The elevator stopped and McKenzie and Beasley walked on. Just as Breedlove was about to walk on to the elevator, he uttered, in an irritated tone of voice, some profanity. Respondent heard Breedlove. This was the final straw as far as Respondent was concerned. He believed that Breedlove was no longer deserving of the privilege of being a trustee. Respondent therefore told Breedlove that he was "busted." In jail parlance, "busted" means removed from trustee status. Any correctional officer in the Main Jail has the authority to "bust" a trustee. Respondent ordered Breedlove to get off the elevator and to go to his cell to pack his belongings. Breedlove got off the elevator and appeared to be headed in the direction of his cell in "B" Wing when he stopped, turned around and just stared at Respondent. Respondent reacted by repeating his order that Breedlove go to his cell. Breedlove, however, did not move. Respondent then started walking towards Breedlove. Breedlove then turned his back to Respondent and made an obscene remark directed at Respondent. Given Breedlove's defiance, Respondent reasonably felt that he needed to take control of the situation and physically guide Breedlove to his cell. He thus walked up to Breedlove, who was somewhere between two to eight feet from the front of the control booth, and put his hand on Breedlove's shoulder to lead him to his cell. As Respondent grabbed Breedlove by the shoulder, Breedlove suddenly started to pull away. Respondent followed after Breedlove, grabbing him by the back of his pants while trying to maintain the grasp he had on his shoulder. The struggle ended abruptly when Respondent fell on top of Breedlove and they both went to floor. Before hitting the ground, Breedlove struck his face on one of the glass panels of the control booth, breaking the glass as well as the wires inside the glass. Although it may have appeared otherwise to those who witnessed the incident, Respondent did not intentionally push or shove Breedlove into the control booth glass. The only force that Respondent purposely used against Breedlove was that which was reasonably necessary to overcome Breedlove's physical resistance to Respondent's directives that he return to his cell. Breedlove started to bleed profusely after hitting the glass. Blood was streaming down his face and onto to his shirt. Respondent was more fortunate than Breedlove. He did not come in contact with any glass. He was startled by the breaking of the glass, but uninjured. After falling to the ground, he got off of Breedlove and backed away to regain his composure. He stood by as Beasley rushed to Breedlove's aid. Beasley helped Breedlove to his feet and took him to the jail clinic to receive medical assistance. Although Respondent did not offer any assistance, his help was not needed inasmuch as Beasley had the situation under control. Breedlove suffered multiple lacerations on his right cheek as a result of the incident. At the jail clinic, bandages were wrapped around his face to control the bleeding. Because of the nature of the injury, Breedlove was referred to Jackson Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Jackson") for further treatment. At Jackson, Breedlove was seen by a nurse practitioner. A small piece of glass was removed from his right check and he received six stitches. After taking Breedlove to the clinic, Beasley went to the office of the shift commander, Lieutenant Francie D'Erminio, to report what had happened between Respondent and Breedlove. A short time thereafter, Respondent arrived at D'Erminio's office to tell her about the incident. D'Erminio ordered that the matter be investigated. An internal investigation of the incident was conducted. Following the completion of the internal investigation, Respondent was given a 15 day suspension by Metro. Respondent successfully appealed his suspension. He subsequently was promoted to corporal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to prove that Respondent is guilty, as charged, of having failed to maintain "good moral character" in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, and (2) based upon such a finding, dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of August, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was incarcerated at Union Correctional Institition within the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. On or about March 1, 1983, Petitioner submitted a request to be admitted to the Mutual Participation Program, also known as ''Contract Parole." Thereafter, Petitioner was considered for eligibility for that program by a classification specialist employed by the Department of Corrections and a parole examiner employed by the Parole and Probation Commission. On April 22, 1983, these two officials recommended against Petitioner's request based on Petitioner's "extensive criminal history," "history of drug abuse in the past," his escape from minimum custody while a patient at the Veteran's Administration hospital in Gainesville in December of 1979, and his involvement in a prison disturbance at Marion Correctional Institute in 1978. Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative code, entitled Mutual participation Program was first adopted by Respondent on September 10, 1981. Respondent conducted rulemaking proceedings in 1982 which resulted in amendments to various portions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code. These amendments became effective October 1, 1982. During the course of the rulemaking proceeding, Respondent published notice of the proposed changes in the Florida Administrative Weekly and, in addition, forwarded copies of the proposed changes to all Department of Corrections offices, including each correctional institution. The record in this cause is unclear as to whether these proposed changes were ever posted in the law library or other office at Union Correctional Institution. Petitioner contends that he was never afforded notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, and library officials at Union Correctional Institution do not specifically recall ever having seen such proposed amendments. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it could be concluded with any certainty whether any of the provisions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, either as it was initially adopted or as it was amended effective October 1, 1982, were applied to Petitioner's request for participation in that program.
The Issue The issue is whether the correctional officer certification of Steven S. Wright should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Steven S. Wright is a certified correctional officer, having been issued certificate number 43-88-502-05 on December 19, 1988. Mr. Wright was employed as a Correctional Officer I at Lake Correctional Institute in June 1989. On the morning of June 20, 1989, and on other occasions, Mr. Wright had discussed drugs with inmates. He did not encourage or support the use of drugs. He believed these discussions were a useful part of the rehabilitation process. Later on June 20, 1989, Inmate Clinton Gholson approached Mr. Wright in the Food Services area and placed a piece of paper in Mr. Wright's pocket. Mr. Wright was planning to be married in a short time. Gholson had indicated that he and some other inmates wanted to make a wedding present for Wright in Arts and Crafts. Because inmates are generally prohibited from giving gifts to correctional officers, Mr. Wright and Gholson had agreed to a paper work process which was to be followed if Gholson and the others wished to make the gift for Mr. Wright. Authorization was to be sought before Mr. Wright actually received the gift. Gholson was to give Mr. Wright a choice of gifts Gholson could make. Mr. Wright understood that Gholson was to give him a short written list from which to pick. While Mr. Wright was working on June 20, 1989, Gholson approached him from behind and slipped the piece of paper into Mr. Wright's back pocket. Gholson indicated it was the gift list and Mr. Wright was to circle the gift he wanted. Gholson said something like, "You do that and that's what we'll make." Mr. Wright did not look at the note then. He forgot about it and finished his work. When Mr. Wright got home that evening, he discovered the note in his pocket. When he opened it, instead of a gift list, he found $3.00 and a note asking Mr. Wright to smuggle drugs (a "twenty cent piece") into the prison and they would make $240.00 from it. Mr. Wright was scheduled off from work the next two days. He was afraid he would lose his job because of what Gholson had done. When Mr. Wright returned to work on June 23, 1989, he told Sergeant Alexander what had happened. She sent him to Major Collier to make a report. Wright made the report and submitted it. He had forgotten to bring the note and money that day, so he could not attach it to the report. When Mr. Wright returned home that night, the note and money were gone. It was never determined if his wife or his nephew or someone else had thrown it away. Once Gholson knew he had Mr. Wright in a bad position, he used it to his advantage. He began demanding money from Mr. Wright and stated at various times that he had given Mr. Wright $10.00 to buy drugs and that he had loaned Mr. Wright $10.00. Mr. Wright reported these incidents immediately. When Gholson wrote another note demanding $10.00, Mr. Wright immediately turned that note over to Major Collier. A hearsay statement from Gholson in the form of a taped interview was submitted into evidence. It is found that Gholson's statements are so unbelievable as to be unworthy of any credibility. Even if the statements were not hearsay, they would be too unbelievable to form the basis for a finding of fact. Mr. Wright was fired from his job at Lake Correctional Institute as a result of these incidents and Gholson's statements. While there are some insignificant inconsistencies among the various statements and reports given by Mr. Wright, I find that his testimony and account of these events is absolutely credible and worthy of belief. While it is not disputed that Mr. Wright left the correctional institute on June 20, 1989, with a note and $3.00 which Gholson slipped into his pocket, it is affirmatively found that Mr. Wright had unwittingly done so. Mr. Wright had no idea that Gholson had placed money into his pocket until he reached home later that night. Mr. Wright did not knowingly accept money from Gholson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Steven S. Wright. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Corrections (“DOC” or the “Department”), engaged in discriminatory practices against Petitioner, Patrick Quercioli, on the basis of his disability; and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 53-year-old Caucasian male. From approximately November 19, 2004, until August 4, 2016, Petitioner was employed by the Department as a Correctional Officer. He was promoted to the rank of Correctional Officer Sergeant on July 28, 2006. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was working at the Annex section of the Lowell Correctional Institution (“Lowell”) located in Marion County. Lowell is a maximum security prison for female inmates; it has an average daily count of approximately 2,800 prisoners. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida, created pursuant to section 20.315, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for, inter alia, hiring and monitoring all employees engaged in operations at a state prison. Petitioner was separated from his employment with DOC due to the fact that he could not “perform the essential functions of his job.” That determination was based on a report from Petitioner’s therapist, Mrs. Robinson, and her opinion that Petitioner could not effectively perform his duties in the presence of inmates. Inasmuch as all Correctional Officer Sergeant positions require contact with inmates, DOC terminated Petitioner’s employment. The facts leading to the ultimate termination of Petitioner’s employment are anything other than ordinary. A discussion of those facts follows. In October 2014, a female inmate at Lowell was found dead in her cell. Petitioner was named as a suspect in the death, despite the fact that at the time of death he was on vacation with his family, i.e., he was not working at the prison. Local and national news outlets began reporting about the death, and Petitioner was named numerous times as a suspect and possible participant. Apparently, Petitioner’s name had been provided to the inmate’s family prior to her death as someone who had been harassing her. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s character and reputation were impugned by the news stories. Petitioner was placed on administrative leave pending further review by the Department. Meanwhile, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) commenced its own extensive investigation into the death of the inmate. The investigation focused quite heavily on Petitioner and one other correctional officer, but FDLE ultimately concluded that there was no evidence to prove either of the men had taken part in the inmate’s death. The inmate’s death, in fact, was ruled to be from natural causes.1/ The FDLE investigation was concluded on January 21, 2015. The Department did not issue a particular statement concerning Petitioner’s vindication, nor did it publish a notice about the FDLE findings. Petitioner takes great umbrage at this perceived failure by DOC, but cited to no requirement that the Department do so. The Department acknowledges that it did not make any effort to make public the findings of the FDLE investigation. During the FDLE investigation and while Petitioner’s alleged involvement in the incident was being broadcast by the news services, Petitioner began receiving threats against his life and the lives of his family members. Who made such threats or why such threats may have been made was not made clear at final hearing. Whether it was family and friends of the inmate, concerned citizens who perceived Petitioner as some kind of monster, or someone else making the threats, Petitioner was concerned for his safety. He was especially worried for his daughter, who had been living part-time with Petitioner on a split schedule with his ex-wife. When the news stories began to appear, the ex-wife refused to allow the daughter to visit with Petitioner. While he wanted to see his child, Petitioner knew that it was better for her to stay away from him until the situation improved. As a result of the publicity, the threats, and the stress on him and his family, Petitioner developed PTSD. The Department approved Petitioner for participation in EAP on March 6, 2015. EAP paid for counseling sessions with Petitioner’s chosen therapist, Mrs. Robinson. Petitioner had about 12 sessions with Mrs. Robinson while he was covered by EAP. After his EAP coverage expired, Petitioner met with Mrs. Robinson for two more sessions paid for as part of his FMLA leave. Mrs. Robinson identified Petitioner’s condition at the beginning of their sessions as quite extreme. He suffered from nightmares, crippling fear, paranoia, and unwillingness to leave his home. He had dark circles under his eyes and was obviously distraught. Mrs. Robinson began to work with Petitioner to help him view his fears and concerns differently. She taught him to utilize mindfulness meditation techniques. He was shown how to perform activities of daily life without being reminded of the trauma he had experienced. The number of sessions he spent with Mrs. Robinson was not sufficient for her to fully address his needs, however. She was able to diagnose his PTSD and began treatment for that condition, but their relationship ended before she could do much for him. By the time her treatment of Petitioner was concluded, they were working toward Petitioner’s acceptance of some inmates in his workplace, as long as they were not “general population inmates.” Ms. Robinson reiterated that Petitioner should not work within the prison compound, i.e., within the perimeter, at this time. She believed that with further assistance, Petitioner may one day be able to do so. By letter dated March 13, 2015, Mrs. Robinson notified the Department that, concerning Petitioner, “It is recommended that he does not return to work until further notice due to the hostility he has faced from the public, his co-workers and other inmates that he would be responsible for which could trigger further de-compensation and contribute to greater emotional disturbance. Mr. Quercioli is open to learning positive coping skills for improved feelings management as well as the treatments necessary for recovering from PTSD.” For about three months, the Department attempted to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant. On June 9, 2015, DOC notified Petitioner that his FMLA leave had been exhausted and he needed to talk to his supervisor, Major Patterson, about when he could come back to work. Mr. Patterson contacted Petitioner and basically said he would need to come back to work at the Lowell Annex, i.e., return to his old job. Meanwhile, the Department, by letter dated June 16, 2015, asked Mrs. Robinson for her opinion regarding whether Petitioner could work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant. The parties to this matter characterize the tone of that letter quite differently. It is therefore quoted here in its entirety for the purpose of objectivity: Dear Mrs. Robinson: The above employee [Petitioner] is a Correctional Office Sergeant with the Florida Department of Corrections at Lowell Correctional Institution. Your opinion regarding Mr. Quercioli’s medical status while working in a potentially dangerous environment will assist management in their decision to retain Mr. Quercioli in his current position. In order for us to determine whether or not Mr. Quercioli can safely perform his duties as a Correctional Officer Sergeant, we request that you complete this questionnaire as to his ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Correctional Officer Sergeant to full capacity. Please bear in mind that Correctional Officer Sergeants must be able to work split, rotating or fixed shifts, weekends, holidays and overtime possibly without notice as required. Overtime may include double shifts and working on off duty days. In order to assist you in making this determination, I am enclosing a position description and a list of essential functions for the Correctional Officer Sergeant position held by Mr. Quercioli. Also, please bear in mind that Mr. Quercioli’s job does require that he be able to possess a firearm. Furthermore, he could at any time be placed in a situation where the use of physical force, including deadly force may be necessary, to control violent inmates or prevent imminent threat to life. We ask that you provide information regarding how Mr. Quercioli can treat and control his condition in a correctional environment. In addition, we need to know what precautionary measures are required to ensure his physical condition is not exacerbated when he is involved in a highly dangerous situation with inmates or volatile situations with supervisors and/or co-workers. In rendering your opinion, if you determine Mr. Quercioli can perform some duties but not others, please specify which duties cannot be performed and the reason why. Additionally, if there is anything that can be done to allow him to perform these duties, please provide this information. In the letter making this request, the Department included a job description and a brief questionnaire to be filled out by the therapist. The questionnaire asked, “After reviewing the position description of Correctional Officer Sergeant, can Mr. Quercioli perform the duties of a Correctional Officer Sergeant with no restrictions?” The questionnaire went on to ask for any reasons that the question was answered in the negative. Mrs. Robinson replied that “No,” Petitioner could not perform the duties without restrictions. She went on to say that, “With 100% supervision of inmates as his primary duties and his constellation of PTSD symptoms, Mr. Quercioli would be at risk of decompensation. A job with no inmate contact may be possible in the future.” Mrs. Robinson had previously, in response to a Medical Certification request from FCHR, listed a few alternative jobs that Petitioner may be able to do, including: “administration away from inmates; staff security away from general population inmates; key keeper or arsenal maintenance away from general population inmates.” The evidence is unclear as to whether the Department was aware of her suggestions regarding those potential jobs for Petitioner. At final hearing, Ms. Robison reiterated her concern about Petitioner being asked to work in an area where general population inmates might be present. Her testimony, in part, was as follows: Q: “[W]ould he have been able to perform the required functions of his employment position based on what you read in his personnel description, the essential functions of his position, had the department considered or approved any request for accommodations Mr. Quercioli made on the department? A: The current job description, position description for a sergeant as a correctional officer, he couldn’t do that job. Q: Could he do others? A: He could do other jobs and we were working towards limited, you know, his acceptance and, you know, with the cognitive behavioral therapy helps you think different about things and he was opening up to the idea that yes, there will be inmates around but they’re at a lower level of risk, and so he was open to that and for trying to work in a different position. * * * Q: So, earlier or a few moments ago when you said he couldn’t perform under [sic] the position of a correctional sergeant, that’s not a hundred percent accurate, correct? A: Right, that was the job description, that is what he was doing in general population, supervising inmates. He can’t supervise inmates and that has a hundred percent by it, supervision of male or female inmates. That what he -- the part of his job that he couldn’t do. Q: Uh-huh, but with an accommodation, he could do that? A: Yes. In another job, other than supervising his primary one hundred percent duties of supervising male or female inmates. Tr., pp. 48-50. Exactly what duties Petitioner could perform without difficulty is unclear. It is certain he could not supervise inmates 100 percent of the time. Whether he could work around inmates in an environment separated from the prison compound is not certain. Whether he could respond to an emergency situation inside the compound is extremely doubtful.2/ Petitioner’s attorney submitted a letter to DOC dated June 26, 2015. The letter requested accommodations that might make it possible for Petitioner to perform one or more jobs at Lowell. The letter suggested part-time or modified work schedules, job restructuring, and other possibilities. The letter also stated, in part, “Instead of requiring Sergeant Quercioli to once again re-live the nightmares arising from his previous duty in the Lowell Annex, the Department could instead assign him to a less stressful desk job.” DOC responded that a less stressful desk job is not a feasible accommodation because a person in that position would not be able to perform the essential duties of a Correctional Officer Sergeant. The attorney responded to the Department that his previous request for an accommodation was not meant to be limited to a “desk job” only; he meant to include any reasonable accommodations. Though the two conversants used different terminology, it is obvious they were both addressing alternative jobs that did not require Petitioner to work within the prison compound, whether that meant literally sitting at a desk or not. Petitioner intimated, but did not conclusively prove, that there were certain jobs in the administration offices, i.e., outside the compound, that he might be capable of filling. No evidence was presented concerning the exact nature of those jobs, the responsibilities attached thereto, or Petitioner’s qualifications to fill them. Following the exchange of letters between DOC and Petitioner (through his attorney), the Department notified Petitioner via letter dated July 9, 2015, that a “personnel action” was being contemplated by DOC which could result in his dismissal from employment. The basis for a personnel action was that Petitioner’s therapist said he was “currently unable to perform the duties of . . . a Correctional Officer Sergeant.” Petitioner was given the opportunity to attend a pre- determination conference with DOC personnel to provide oral or written statements in regards to the personnel action. A conference was held on July 23, 2015. The Department was represented by Warden Gordon and Colonel Edith Pride. A teamster representative, Michael Riley, accompanied Petitioner to the conference. Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Bisbee, attended the conference via telephone. Petitioner did not bring his therapist, Ms. Robinson, to the meeting because “it never crossed my mind” that she should attend. At the conference, Petitioner reiterated his desire to return to work, but stated he would rather not interact with inmates, even though he believed he might be able do so. His belief was inconsistent with his therapist’s determination and contrary to his attorney’s representations. It is unclear whether DOC could have assigned Petitioner to a position that did not involve some contact with inmates. There were a few jobs mentioned that take place in the prison’s administration building, outside the perimeter. Some of the “trustee” type inmates working within the administration building may have been much less threatening to Petitioner than general population inmates. But because every Correctional Officer Sergeant is deemed to be on call to attend to disturbances within the prison compound, regardless of their job or workplace, Petitioner could be subject to having close contact with the general population inmates. Petitioner identified one specific job in administration that he thought he might be able to handle despite some inmate contact. That job, in the area of training, was filled by another Correctional Officer Sergeant. Petitioner did not ever formally apply for the job. Subsequent to the predetermination conference, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner advising him that “You will be dismissed from your position as a Correctional Officer Sergeant effective August 4, 2015.” The letter gave Petitioner the right to grieve the action or to appeal it to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Petitioner did not avail himself of either of those options. Instead, he filed a claim with FCHR, resulting ultimately in the present action. DOC based its decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment on the fact that his own therapist had opined that he could not perform the essential functions of a Correctional Officer Sergeant. That is because persons in that position–-no matter what duties they were performing--must be able at a moment’s notice to react personally to any emergency situation that may arise within the inmate population. A correctional officer working in the motor pool, for example, may have to drop what he is doing, pick up a firearm, and rush into the compound to quell a disturbance. A sergeant who is performing training for other officers may have to cease her training and immediately report to duty inside the compound to respond to inmate unrest. There is no job under the Correctional Officer Sergeant umbrella that is immune from contact with inmates at any given time. There was, in short, no reasonable accommodation the Department could offer Petitioner. Two pertinent quotes from the record explain concisely the basis of the Department’s position in this case: As a general rule, we don’t “accommodate” correctional officers because the accommodations requested generally include exemption from the essential functions. We provide alternate duty for those officers who are temporarily unable to perform the duties of their position because of a work related injury. However, while on alternate duty, they do not wear a uniform, nor do they perform the duties of a [Correctional Officer]. * * * Quercioli’s therapist, Beth Robinson, stated he was not able to perform the duties of his position, although a job with no inmate contact may be possible in the future. There are no correctional officer positions, regardless of rank, whose essential functions do not include dealing with inmates. Exhibit 4 to Petitioner Exhibit 1, email from Patricia Linn, human resources analyst. It is not unusual for employees to request so-called “accommodations” from DOC relating to their duties as correctional officers. Such requests may include exceptions to the dress code, a need for ergonomic chairs, leave extensions, parking space changes, alternate work schedules, and the like. Each request is reviewed on its own merits and some are granted, some are denied. In fact, Petitioner alluded to the fact that after the inmate death incident, he had been reassigned to alternate duties not having to do with inmate monitoring. His duties were related to assisting applicants for jobs at Lowell to fill out their applications. Petitioner intimated that he did not enjoy that position. Petitioner asserts that DOC made no effort to contact him to discuss possible accommodations. He did not cite to any existing policy or rule which would require the Department to do so, however. Further, Petitioner admitted that he did not attempt to initiate such conversations with the Department, either. Since losing his job at Lowell, Petitioner has been unable to obtain gainful employment. Of the scores of internet applications for employment (and one in-person interview), not a single position came to fruition. As a result, Petitioner cashed out his state retirement plan, using the money to pay bills and provide for his daughter’s needs. Petitioner presented no evidence in this case that persons with disabilities were treated any differently by the Department when they requested accommodations.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that the Department of Corrections had legitimate cause for the dismissal of employment of Petitioner, Patrick Quercioli, and that there is no evidence of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Luis A. Pacheco, Joel Estremera, Felipe Pichardo and Owen D. Denson, are inmates in the custody and control of the Department. The Department is a state agency. On December 26, 1991, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule against the First Respondents. The Petition was filed against "John T. Shaw, Superintendent, Glades Correctional Institution, et. al." In the Petition, the Petitioners challenged the validity of "the revision of Glades Correctional Operating Procedure 91-07, sec. 7.09" pursuant to Sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petition failed to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. On January 10, 1992, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered granting a Motion to Dismiss filed by the First Respondents and giving the Petitioners an opportunity to file an amended petition on or before January 21, 1992. No amended petition was filed by the Petitioners on or before January 21, 1992. Therefore, on January 29, 1992, an Order Concerning Proposed Final Orders was entered informing the parties that they could file proposed final orders on or before February 24, 1992, and that this Final Order would be entered on or before March 16, 1992. On February 7, 1992, the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Determination of Invalidity of An Existing Rule and requested that it be accepted. On February 25, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered accepting the Amended Petition and informing the parties that this case would be disposed of by a summary final order. In the Amended Petition the Department was named as the Respondent. Although the amended petition indicates that the Petitioners are challenging Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Sections 120.52, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes, in fact the Petitioners are challenging a memorandum issued at Glades Correctional Institution changing Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy and Procedure Directive"). In the Amended Petition the Petitioners allege, in part, the following: Respondent through his designee, John T. Shaw, has adopted exhibit " A " as a rule, which governs petitioners [sic] visitors to select from, " Saturday or Sunday as their regular visiting day. Petitioners are therefore substantially " affected " and this case includes an invalid exercise of delagated [sic] authority because the department of corrections failed to promulgate it's Policy and Procedure Directive number 3.04.12 as a rule, contrary to the requirements of section 944.09, Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition fails to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined is Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether the memorandum petitioners challenge amounts to a rule improperly promulgated? Whether the rules petitioners challenge are arbitrary and capricious or are otherwise beyond the authority delegated to respondent? STANDING STIPULATED At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. O'Donnell stated a motion ore tenus to strike paragraph five of the petition, in which the memorandum was challenged, on grounds that a challenge to the memorandum was premature, quoting the memorandum: "[T]he limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984." After argument, the hearing officer was persuaded that the challenge was not premature on its fact, inasmuch as inmates with "items no listed . . . or an excessive amount of property" must decide whether to dispose of property before April 1, 1984, or suffer its confiscation; since nothing further was required for the memorandum to be efficacious; and since failure to enforce a rule does not alter its character as a rule. After the motion to strike was denied, Mr. O'Donnell stipulated, on the record, that standing was not in issue. He nevertheless argues in respondent's "proposed findings of fact-- conclusions of law--final order," as follows: Knowing the issue of standing as to the memo to have been put at issue by Respondent, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to place into the record some indication of impact. Having failed to do so, Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the memo. State v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). 9. The issue of the adverse impact of the memo is crucial to a proper determination of whether the memo is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. * * * The memo, rather than adversely affect inmates, may not have any substantial impact on Petitioners. Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. Again, Petitioner entirely failed to introduce evidence on this point. This argument is precluded by Mr. O'Donnell's stipulation on the record at the hearing. Having stipulated that no proof was necessary to show the impact of the memorandum, respondent cannot now be heard to complain of the absence of proof on that point. Mr. O'Donnell also stipulated that the memorandum was not promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact It is clear from its title that the memorandum is meant to apply only to Union Correctional Institution. The body of the memorandum, dated February 1, 1984, provides, in full: The attached 1/ is a list of the type and quantity of inmate property authorized at UCI. Inmates may also possess items sold by the Canteen, items received through an approved Package Permit, items authorized to be in cells as part of the Hobbycraft Program and items issued by the state. Property Quantity limits are necessary to prevent fires and control insect infestation. In addition, they provide a standard for both inmates and staff to follow in determining if an inmate's amount of property is excessive. Since many inmates have accumulated property for a long time, the limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984. Inmates who have items not listed in this me[m]orandum or an excessive amount of property should begin making arrangements to send items out of the institution. Inmates who need to dispose of property should send a request to Sgt. Singletary, Property Officer. Items may be mailed somewhere or placed on the Main Gate for pick-up by a visitor. Your cooperation in reducing the amount of excess property yourselves, prior to April 1, 1984, will be greatly appreciated. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. It is signed by D. E. Jackson, Colonel, Correctional Officer Chief II, and P. V. Gunning, Assistant Superintendent of Operations. Dennis Dean Cooper is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. In the month or two preceding the hearing, prison personnel confiscated wax, a wooden mallet, a hammer, a knife and rubber glue, all belonging to Cooper, who had acquired them, after gaining approval to do so, in connection with the Hobbycraft program. Guards searched from cell to cell and filled a 50 gallon barrel with items they took from Dean's cell alone. Kenneth Hayes' right eye was injured in a boxing accident. A governmental agency set up to assist the blind issued Hayes, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, a green tape cassette recorder which prison personnel seized on January 19, 1984; they also took the stool he had made with approved Hobbycraft materials. That was the same day, or perhaps the day before, William Joseph Goens, an inmate house in the Main Housing Unit at Union Correctional Institution, lost his inlaid wooden chessboard in a "shakedown." Another inmate, Clayton, had given him the chessboard. Goens later saw the chessboard in a trash barrel in the back of a dump truck. Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution and housed at 3T8, John Richard Clayton also lost property in the January 1984 shakedown, including Hobbycraft items, personal letters and letters from his attorney bearing on the proceedings eventuating in his incarceration. He is skilled at leather working and sometimes has temporary possession of other inmates' leather goods for purposes of effecting their repair. An electric fan which an inmate transferred to another institution had given Clayton before leaving was also confiscated. When prison personnel proposed to confiscate John McConnell's legal papers, if he did not dispose of them himself, he called several lawyers. Eventually he was issued a metal locker to which he transferred his legal papers from the cardboard box that had held them. No papers were ever confiscated. Petitioner Carl Cribbs, also confined at Union Correctional Institution lost two, bound folders containing legal documents, including 13 affidavits, as well as an electric fan, when these items were confiscated by prison guards on January 19, or 20, 1984. Radios and electric fans are registered as a means of identifying them. They are treated as contraband except when they are in the possession of the inmate to whom they are registered. If an inmate lends property to another inmate, it may become contraband subject to confiscation, regardless of the type of property involved. These practices protect inmates from theft, which is rampant at Union Correctional Institution. Guards and inmates alike are subject to "shakedowns" without notice as a means of controlling the flow of contraband. Under the right circumstances, virtually any property in an inmate's possession might be seized. At one time inmates were permitted to have matches and buy honey from the canteen in glass jars. After they began hurling empty honey jars at one another, the canteen switched to plastic containers for honey, and glass jars of all kinds were treated as contraband and confiscated. Inmates are still allowed cigarette lighters, but matches have been contraband ever since the authorities learned that new equipment in the shop made it possible for the inmates to manufacture zip guns. On the other hand, inmates are allowed Hobbycraft items, under ordinary circumstances, including X-acto knives. These knives have blades less than an inch long, but could be lethal if used as a weapon. If an inmate if found guilty of a rule infraction and subjected to administrative confinement, his property is confiscated. If an inmate attempted suicide, even his clothes might be removed. Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland, confined at Union Correctional Institution at the time of the hearing, had legal papers confiscated while he was at Baker Correctional Institution, but eventually recovered them pursuant to court order. Douglas L. Adams and Joe Lewis Holland v. Department of Corrections ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, et al., No. AV-483 (Fla. 1st DCA; December 13, 1983). At Baker Correctional Institution everything that did not fit into a bed locker was treated as contraband. David Watson, Assistant Superintendent at Florida State Prison, has been ordered by the fire marshall to cause large cardboard boxes of papers to be removed from the prison. Some items seized as contraband are burnt. Others are given to the Boys' Ranch or the inmates' welfare fund. All Florida prisons have storage rooms and inmates are ordinarily issued lockers, but there are physical limits on how much personal property can be stored at Union Correctional Institution or any other prison. Too many things in prisoners' cells make for problems with sanitation and insect infestation.
