Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Brown, is the holder of a Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, a Class "D" Security Officer License, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. On September 19, 1989, the Department of State (Department) temporarily approved respondent's application for a Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility to be located at 15966 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. In June 1991 respondent relocated his school to 7900 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida; however, it was not until September 30, 1991, that he applied for a license at such location and not until February 18, 1992, that the Department issued its temporary approval of such application. Each of the schools operated by respondent and approved by the Department were designated, by respondent, as "in-house," or non-fee charging. During the period extending from April 1991 through January 1992 respondent provided training for a Class "D" Unarmed Security Guard License in Monroe County, Florida, without benefit of a Class "DS" Security Guard School License for that location, which failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. Specifically, in April 1991, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in the Econo Lodge, Key West, Florida. Such class included, among others, Brian Whitten and Ronald Shipman, who each paid approximately $100 for the course. The course lasted one day, starting at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluding around 4:00 p.m. following the administration of the examination, with one hour off for lunch and several short breaks. In all, not more that 6 hours of instruction were given. Both Whitten and Shipman received a certificate of successful completion of unarmed security guard training from respondent. Again, in January 1992, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in Key West, Florida. Such class included, among 8 or 9 others, Bruce Clothier, who paid $75 for the course. The course lasted from 8:00 a.m. until noon the first day, and from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 11:30 a.m. the second day. The second day of instruction lasted approximately three hours, most of which was a review of the previous day's material, and then the students were accorded about one-half hour to take an examination. Every student received a certificate of successful completion of the unarmed security guard training from respondent. As with the unarmed security guard training, the firearms trained offered by respondent often failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. In January 1991, in Miami, Florida, Brian Whitten received training from the respondent for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. His classroom and range training totaled approximately ten hours. Between April and October 1991, Charles Ramsey was employed by respondent at his Miami school, and assisted respondent in conducting training courses for Class "D" and Class "G" licensure. At the time, respondent was disabled, and Ramsey assisted him with various physical activities, as well as teaching first aid instruction to the students. While Ramsey taught the first aid course, respondent was always present. Ramsey did not, however, hold a Class "DI" license. Regarding the firearms training course for Class "K" licensure offered during this period, the proof demonstrates that little formal instruction was given. Rather, the students were given a booklet to take home with them to study for two days and on the third day received a block of instruction on the statutes of the State of Florida and firearm safety and an examination before lunch. Following lunch, the students received their range training. In December 1991, in Miami, Florida, John Ortiz paid respondent $40.00 for the training required for a firearms waiver. Respondent provided Ortiz with four hours of classroom training, which included reading and classroom discussion, and approximately two hours of range training. During range training, Ortiz fired one hundred and fifty rounds of ammunition. In January 1992, Ortiz returned to the respondent for requalification with his .38 caliber pistol for his Class "G" license. Respondent asked Ortiz for $35.00, which he paid, and received his recertification without any further training. On January 15, 1992, a Department of State investigator met with respondent to inspect his business records. Such inspection revealed that respondent had not maintained school records for a period of at least two years at his business location, and those that were available failed to disclose the type of training given, the location of the classes, a log of students and their signatures for each class, or the name of the instructor. Nor did respondent have copies of all certificates or diplomas presented to students for successful completion of training courses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in Courts I-VII of the administrative complaint, dismissing Count VIII of the administrative complaint, and revoking respondent's Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, and Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility License, reserving to respondent the opportunity to reapply for licensure following one year from the date of revocation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 2nd day of April 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Through RFP-DOT-94/95-4009, entitled "Rest Area Security Services- District Four" (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP"), the Department requested the submission of proposals from "consultants" interested in providing the Department with security services at rest areas on Interstate Highways in St. Lucie, Martin and Broward Counties in the Department's District IV. The "objective" of the RFP was explained as follows in Section 1.0 of Exhibit "A," which was attached to, and incorporated in, the main body of the RFP: To provide appropriately equipped and security personnel at Rest Areas along the Interstate Highways, and to provide protection for the General Public, Department personnel, and all property at locations specified in this Contract (see Exhibit "D," for locations). It is the intent of the Department to protect its personnel, property, and the Public by means of well-trained, alert, interested, and concerned Security Officers. The Contractor must ensure that their Security Officers properly carry out their primary duty to safeguard the General Public, the Department's personnel, and all property. The "services to be provided" to the Department were described as follows in Section 2.0 of Exhibit "A:" The Contractor shall provide qualified, competent, uniformed, and armed Security Officers to provide security services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of and visitors to the State of Florida. The Contractor will be responsible for verifying that the scope of its operations are sufficiently broad and well defined to ensure the maximum protection of property and life and are also consistently managed in an efficient and profes- sional manner. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide security services as stated herein, within the physical limits of the rest areas and/or welcome stations. Those limits shall begin at the approach taper of the deceleration lane, extend through the rest area and/or welcome station from the edge of the paved shoulder of the main roadway, and terminate at the end of the acceleration taper. The Security Officers will be responsible for monitoring the grounds surround- ing the facility, including, but not limited to: all parking lots, picnic areas, and restroom build- ings. The Contractor shall insure that all employees comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations set forth by the Department. The security services shall be provided on a continuous 24-hours-per-day and 7-days-a-week (including all holidays) basis. The Contractor shall have sufficient back-up personnel and equip- ment available to immediately replace personnel and/ or equipment that may fail. The Department may modify the type of service, number of hours, or number of employees upon 24-hours-notice in writing. The Contractor shall furnish one or more Security Officer(s) per each Rest Area unit and/or Welcome Station. There are five (5) units in District IV (see exhibit "D" for locations). The Contractor, and every employee of the Contractor assigned to the project, shall comply with the security industry standards referenced in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The Contractor shall provide materials and equipment as specified herein. At all times, Security Officers will be courteous and display a professional and friendly manner. The "special requirements" of the contract into which the Department would enter with the winning "consultant" were set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit "A," which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department reserves the right to require the Contractor to relieve an employee from duty assignments and/or bar an employee from further service under this Contract. No reason need be given by the Contract Manager. 1/ The Contractor shall obtain and pay for any and all licenses, permits, registrations, and inspections, etc. required for this project's proposal and performance. The Contractor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and code requirements applicable to the work contemplated herein. Damages, penalties, and/or fines imposed on the Department or the Contractor for failure to obtain any and all required licenses and/or permits shall be borne by the Contractor. Prior to any employee beginning work pursuant to this Contract, the Contractor's Project Manager shall provide sworn certification to the Department's Contract Manager that each employee (Security Officers and Contract Supervisors) 2/ meets the eligibility criteria as specified herein. The "eligibility criteria" for these "Security Officers and Contract Supervisors" were set forth in Section 18.0 of Exhibit "A," which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: All Security Officers and Contract Supervisors employed by the Contractor under this Contract are required to meet the minimum qualifications and standards regarding background, experience, and health. The suitability of Security Officers and Contract Supervisors for employment pursuant to this Contract must be determined by the Contractor; however, the Department reserves the right to disapprove of the employment of Security Officers and Contract Supervisors due to unsuitability. Minimum Requirements for Security Officers: . . . 8) Must acquire, keep active, and possess on their persons at all times while on duty all personal, professional, and technical licenses or certificates specified in this Contract, or otherwise required for performance of the work required pursuant to this Contract. . . . Minimum Requirements for Contract Security Supervisors Contract Supervisors must meet the eligibility criteria established for the Security Officer classification. . . . Required Documentation: All of the Contractor's personnel (e.g. Security Officers and Contract Supervisors) performing work under this Contract must possess on their person at all times while on duty, and keep current all appropriate cards, certificates, and licenses, as follows (unless the Contractor's personnel is certified and employed as a law enforcement officer or correctional officer and exempted from such licensure requirements pursuant to Section 493.6102(1), Florida Statutes): State of Florida Class "D" License (security guard license) State of Florida Class "G" License (license authorizing individual to bear a firearm) NOTE: The use or possession of a concealed firearm in connection with this Contract is prohibited. State of Florida Driver's License or other State Driver's License which permits the individual to operate a vehicle in the State of Florida. Section 1.7 of the main body of the RFP addressed the subject of the "consultant's" qualifications to provide the services to be performed under the contract. It read as follows: Qualifications for Consultant Services General The Department will determine whether the proposed 3/ is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon the Consultant demonstrating in its proposal satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. The proposer shall include the necessary experienced personnel and facilities to support the activities associated with this contract. Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of services. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Project Manager. Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Review of Facilities After the proposal due date and prior to contract award, the Department reserves the right to perform or have performed, an on-site review of the proposer's facilities. This review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and to determine whether the proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff, and can provide overall management facilities. The review will also serve to verify whether the Proposer has financial capability adequate to meet the contract requirements. In the event the Department determines that the size or nature of the proposer's facilities or the number of exper- ienced personnel (including technical staff) are not reasonably adequate to ensure satisfactory contract performance, the Department has the right to reject the proposal. 4/ Section 1.8 of the main body of the RFP addressed the subjects of "Department reservations and responsiveness of proposals." It read as follows: General The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received and reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the proposals submitted. Therefore, the proposals should be submitted initially in the most favorable manner. It is understood that the proposal will become a part of the official file on this matter without obligation to the Department. Responsiveness of Proposals All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal. Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, improper or undated signatures. Multiple Proposals Proposals may be rejected if more than one proposal is received from an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation, or combination thereof, under the same or different names. Such duplicate interest may cause the rejection of all proposals in which such proposer has participated. Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of proposals include evidence of collusion among proposers, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. Section 1.10 of the main body of the RFP provided that "[t]he general terms and conditions of any agreement between the Department and the selected proposer will be guided by State procedures" and that "[e]ach individual, partnership, firm or corporation that is part of the proposer's team, either by joint venture, or subcontract, will be subject to, and comply with, the contractual requirements." Subsection 1.14.2 of the main body of the RFP established 12:00 noon on Friday, May 12, 1995, as the deadline for the submission of proposals in response to the RFP. Pursuant to Section 1.16 of the main body of the RFP, each proposal was to consist of a management plan (worth a maximum of 20 points), a technical plan (worth a maximum of 15 points) and a price proposal (worth a maximum of 65 points). Section 1.19 of the main body of the RFP addressed the subject of "award of contract." It provided as follows: The Department intends to award ONE (1) contract to the responsible and responsive proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department. NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL EXECUTE AND RETURN AGREEMENT WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER "NOTICE OF AWARD." IN THIS TIME PERIOD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THIS SPECIFIED TIME WILL SHOW EVIDENCE OF CONTRACTOR'S LACK OF ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE DEPARTMENT MAY REWARD TO THE PROPOSER WITH THE NEXT HIGHEST SCORE. Proposers seeking Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) preference points were also required to complete and submit a DBE Preference Certification form, as explained in subsection 1.16.5 of the main body of RFP, which provided as follows: For the purposes of this RFP, a certified DBE shall be certified by the Florida Department of Transportation pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, Rule Chapter 14-78. The Proposer shall address Florida CDBE partici- pation by either themselves or subcontractors. 5/ The Department will add 30 points to the scores of Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (CDBE) proposing as the prime consultant on this project. The Department will add up to 30 points to the scores of firms (Non-CDBE) utilizing Certified DBE's as subcontractors for services or commodities as follows: 30 percent or more of the total project costs- 30 points 25 percent but less than 29.99 percent of the total project costs- 20 points 20 percent but less than 24.99 percent of the total project costs- 10 points 15 percent but less than 19.99 percent of the total project costs- 05 points 0 percent to 14.99 percent of the total project costs- 0 points Complete and submit the DBE Preference Points Certification Form (Form "D") in the Price Proposal, if CDBE preference points are to be considered. On Form "D," proposers had to indicate the following: I, (Name), (Title), of (Name of Firm), herby certify that our firm (is) (is not) a Department of Transportation (Department) certified Dis- advantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). I also certify that our firm's intention regarding subcontracting on the above referenced project(s) to Department certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises is as follows: (Check One) Intends to subcontract at least 30 percent or more= 30 points Intends to subcontract at least 25 percent but less than 29.99 percent= 20 points Intends to subcontract at least 20 percent but less than 24.99 percent= 10 points Intends to subcontract at least 15 percent but less than 19.99 percent= 05 points Intend[s] to subcontract less than 15 percent work to DBE(s)= 0 points Since I have indicated above that a percentage of total project costs will be subcontracted to certified DBE(s), the firms considered as proposed DBE subconsultant/vendors and the types of services/commodities to be subcontracted are as follows: DBE SUBCONSULTANTS/VENDORS: TYPE OF WORK/ COMMODITIES I understand that the Department will give preference in selection of DBE(S) and to other firms who propose to subcontract at least 15 percent or more of the total project costs to DBE(s). I further understand that five (5) preference points will be added to my proposal score if my firm indicates its intent to sub- contract at least 15 percent but less than 19.99 percent of the services/commodities to DBE(s); and that ten (10) preference points will be added to my proposal score if my firm indicates its intent to subcontract at least 20 percent but less than 24.99 percent of the services/commodities to DBE(s); that twenty (20) preference points will be added to my proposal score if my firm indicates its intent to subcontract at least 25 percent but less than 29.99 percent of the services/commodities to DBE(s); and a maximum of thirty (30) preference points will be added to my proposal score if my firm indicates its intent to subcontract 30 percent or more of the services/commodities to DBE(s) or is a Department certified DBE. On or about May 5, 1995, the Department issued the following addendum to the RFP "to answer and clarify questions presented by a potential proposer:" 6/ Reference the above project in which you have an interest. Please add this letter and enclosed pages into your Request for Proposal. Will DOT permit subcontracting of security services to DBE's? (The DBE would have to comply with all requirements of the RFP regarding security officer qualifications, etc.). 7/ Response: Yes Will the DOT permit proposals which include a "pending" DBE certification for a business applying for DBE certification? Response: To receive performance points a DBE prime contractor must be certified by the May 23, 1995 posting. Will points be awarded to DBE subconsultants/ vendors with a "pending" certification status during the evaluation process? Response: To receive performance points a DBE Subconsultant/Vendor must be certified by the May 23, 1995 posting. 8/ Can DOT provide a list of certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises? Response: An FDOT DBE Directory is available for review at any District Office or a copy can be obtained from the FDOT Minority Programs Office in Tallahassee by calling 904-921-7370. We have listed below three (3) Certified DBE firms who have shown an interest in providing security services[.] 9/ [T]hey are: American Alarms, Inc. 305-653-7708 Tunjos Trading Company, Inc. 305-621-2668 Universal Private Investigative & Guard Agency, Inc. 407-636-7270 The following ten (10) firms have "Pending" applications as of May 5, 1995, for FDOT-DBE Certification: Alanis Security, Inc. 305-595-8171 Barkley Security Agency 904-856-5646 Delad Security, Inc. 305-691-5772 Ford Patrol & Security 305-836-5544 Jake Ross Detective & Security Agency 904-258-8709 Pacific Security Service, Inc. 305-989-0369 Small Rehab Services & Small Security Agency 813-237-2689 Special Tech Security Agency 904-723-0115 Supreme Intelligence Agency 305-777-3134 Walter Investigative Services 305-653-1144 Pleas remember that you must SIGN AND RETURN THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR BID PROPOSAL. FAILURE TO SUBMIT WITH BID PROPOSAL AND ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ADDENDUM WILL DISQUALIFY YOUR PROPOSAL. If you have any questions, please call me at (305)777-4611. Petitioner and Intervenor, both Florida-licensed security guard agencies, submitted proposals in response to the RFP, which included completed and signed Form "D"s. Petitioner's and Intervenor's price proposals (on a monthly basis) were $60,720.00 and $53,458.80, respectively. On its completed and signed Form "D," Petitioner indicated that it was not a Department-certified DBE, but that it intended to subcontract "at least 30 percent or more" of the total project costs to a certified DBE. Petitioner further indicated on the form that its "proposed DBE subconsultant/vendor" was Dadeline Corporation and that the "services/commodities to be subcontracted" were "security guard services." Dadeline was a Department-certified DBE that possessed a Class "B" Security Agency license issued by the Department of State, Division of Licensing pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On its completed and signed Form "D," Intervenor, like Petitioner, indicated that it was not a Department-certified DBE, but that it intended to subcontract "at least 30 percent or more" of the total project costs to a certified DBE. 10/ Intervenor further indicated on the form that its "proposed DBE subconsultant/vendor" was American Alarms, Inc., and that the "services/commodities to be subcontracted" were "security services." American Alarms, Inc., was one of the three Department-certified DBE firms mentioned in the addendum to the RFP as having "an interest in providing security services." Unlike Dadeline Corporation, however, it did not possess a Class "B" Security Agency license issued by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, nor did it have any experience in providing security guard services. Both Petitioner and Intervenor received 30 DBE preference points. Intervenor was awarded these DBE preference points, notwithstanding that its "proposed DBE subconsultant/vendor," American Alarms, Inc., did not possess a Class "B" Security Agency license authorizing it to conduct business as a security guard agency in the State of Florida or have any experience in the provision of security guard services. There is no indication, however, that the Department was aware, at the time it awarded these preference points to Intervenor, that American Alarms, Inc., was unlicensed and inexperienced. The RFP did not direct proposers to provide the Department with any information regarding the current licensure status and experience of its "proposed DBE subconsultant/vendor" and Intervenor did not volunteer such information in its response to the RFP. 11/ Petitioner's total score was 109.25, the second highest of all proposers. Intervenor's total score was 119.92, the highest of all proposers. The scores were posted on May 23, 1995. The posted proposal tabulation reflected that the contract award was made to Intervenor as "the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal [was] determined to be the most advantageous to the State taking into consideration price and other criteria." Thereafter, Petitioner filed the protest that is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's protest of the decision to award State Job No. 99906-9520 to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 21st day of November, 1995.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1996, Petitioner revoked Respondent's Class "D" security officer license number D95-12548 and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in security services and to return to Petitioner Respondent's license. That Final Order certifies that a copy was mailed to Respondent that day. Respondent did not return his license to Petitioner. On November 1, 1996, Fred Speaker, the investigator supervisor in Petitioner's West Palm Beach office, went to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent asserted that he did not know where his license was. Respondent did not produce his license. On November 12 Speaker returned to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent was not there, and Respondent's wife did not produce Respondent's license. On April 17, 1997, while Speaker and investigator Jack D'Ambrosio were checking security posts and licenses, they encountered Respondent who was on duty at the gate house of a private community. They asked Respondent for his company identification and his guard license. Respondent produced both documents for their inspection. Petitioner's employees did not take Respondent's license that evening since they wished first to verify if the license were still revoked before taking Respondent's license from him. Sometime subsequent to that date, D'Ambrosio saw Respondent in Petitioner's office and again asked Respondent for his license. Respondent refused to give his license to D'Ambrosio.
Recommendation Based upon 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 and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Giordano, pro se 3655 Coelebs Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's application for unarmed guard license reveals that she has been arrested several times on charges of failing to appear, conspiracy to commit robbery or kidnapping, and escape. Although some of the charges were serious, it does not appear that she has ever been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude or dishonest dealings, or that she has ever lost her civil rights. It does appear that the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as an unarmed guard.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 15, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1991, Respondent performed the services of a security guard at a Best Western Motel in Orange County, Florida, As such he was employed by the motel. While performing the services above noted Respondent carried a 9mm Berretta automatic pistol in a holster external to his clothes. While performing the above-noted services Respondent's firearm was unloaded and he had hollow point 9mm shells in his pocket. While performing the above-noted services Respondent held neither a Class D nor Class G license. Respondent was performing the services of security guard while substituting for a relative who was ill. Respondent was working solely for the motel and was not associated with any security guard agency. The motel manager had requested that Respondent carry a unloaded firearm because several crimes had been committed in the vicinity of the motel. Respondent believed that as an employee of the motel, as contrasted with being employed by a security guard agency, Respondent did not need a security guard license. Further, Respondent believed he had a Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to overtly carry the firearm in the holster outside his clothing. At the time of this hearing Respondent was unemployed.
The Issue The issues are whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a felony, whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether Tunstall falsified his application.
Findings Of Fact Leonard P. Tunstall made application for licensure as an unarmed and armed security guard to the Department of State. His application was received by the Department in February of 1981. The application indicates it was signed by Tunstall on October 29, 1980. Question #13 on the application was answered "no," as indicated by a check mark. When he originally received the application, Tunstall filled it out up to Question #13. He had not completed that question because he lacked all the data. Subsequently, Albert Simmons, his supervisor, stopped by Tunstall's residence and picked up the application, which Simmons completed with assistance from Tunstall's girlfriend. Neither Simmons nor Tunstall's girl friend had knowledge of Tunstall's record. Subsequently, Tunstall advised Simmons about his arrests, and Simmons told him that his arrests would not disqualify him. Tunstall signed the application with the understanding that his arrests would be disclosed. However, Simmons was subsequently fired, and Tunstall's application was found by Simmons' successor who submitted it with the arrests undisclosed. Tunstall's application, Respondent's Exhibit 1, indicates that answers to Questions #1 through #12 were hand-written, Question #13 was answered by placing a check mark in the "no" block, and answers to Questions #14 through #17 were type-written. Simmons was the notary who authenticated Tunstall's signature. Tunstall further testified that he began work for Florida Merchant Police in June of 1979, as a uniformed rail crossing guard. In approximately January of 1980, he was assigned to work at an unarmed security guard post. It was after this that he was given an application for licensure by the company. Tunstall's FBI records reveal the following arrests and convictions: 1939 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1940 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1947 - Burglary and attempted larceny, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 1 to 2 years - served 8 months) 1958 - Assault and battery, NJ (Fined) 1958 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1960 - Burglary, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 2 to 3 years) 1975 - Keeping a house of ill fame, FL (Dismissed) Tunstall testified that his civil rights had been restored in New Jersey, but he could not introduce any documentation to support his testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that Leonard Tunstall's application for licensure as an armed guard be denied, and recommends that Tunstall's application for licensure as an unarmed guard be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Tunstall Suite 996 12555 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33181 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact As Needed Temps, Inc., Respondent, provides temporary employees to various businesses. Respondent is not licensed under Chapter 493. Respondent Mary E. Carter is president of Respondent. She is also the director of operations for SOS Security, Inc., whose principal place of business is at the same location as that of Respondent. SOS Security, Inc. holds a Class "B" license. In August, 1987, David Christy, who was a drywall laborer, was working temporary jobs that Respondent had found for him. On August 8 or 9, 1988, Respondent assigned him to SOS Security, Inc., which placed Mr. Christy as a security guard at a local bicycle racetrack. While working as a security guard, Mr. Christy wore the guard uniform of SOS Security, Inc. Mr. Christy was not a licensed security guard. SOS Security, Inc., which billed its customer for the security service, paid Respondent for Mr. Christy's services, and Respondent paid Mr. Christy. At least one other individual entered into a similar arrangement with Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. Willy Dorsey, whose security guard license had expired in 1986, was paid by Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. at different times for security work that he performed during an unspecified year. These incidents were not isolated. Respondent invoiced SOS Security, Inc. a total of over $13,000 in three invoices from March 20, 1987, through May 8, 1987, for "providing guard service."
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1402 1-2. Rejected as not finding of fact. 3-10. Rejected as recitation of evidence and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mary E. Carter President As Needed Temps, Inc. 6239 Edgewater Drive Suite N-5 Orlando, Florida 32810 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a Class "D" Security Officer license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Cherubin Bastien (Bastien) filed an application with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) for a Class "D" Security Officer license on July 1, 1994. The Department denied Bastien's application by letter dated August 24, 1994. At final hearing the only basis for denial at issue was that Petitioner was currently serving felony probation. On October 14, 1993, Bastien was sentenced, in State of Florida v. Cherubin Bastien, Case No. 93-5337CF10, on a charge of aggravated assault (firearm), before the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to two and one half years probation, and adjudication was withheld. Bastien's probation will not terminate until April, 1996. Bastien is currently on probation and was on probation at the time that he filed his application on July 1, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Cherubin Bastien's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-219S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Cherubim Bastien 2322 Johnson Street, Apt. 1 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed Class “D” Security Officer, committed misconduct by abandoning his post as alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of Class “D” Security Officer License Number D94- 02827. Kevin Buffington was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, a vice-president of Elite Guard and Patrol Service, Inc. (Elite). David Fambrini was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, a supervisor with Elite. On April 3, 1996, Respondent was employed by Elite as a security guard. Respondent was assigned to a post at the Fontainebleau Hotel on Miami Beach. He was scheduled to be on his post for a nine hour shift beginning at noon and ending at 9:00 p.m. Because it was Respondent’s first day on the job, Mr. Fambrini went to the Fontainbleau Hotel with Respondent, showed him around the facilities, explained to him his duties, and introduced him to the management of the hotel. After spending approximately an hour and a half with Respondent, Mr. Fambrini left the hotel to attend to other matters. Respondent was responsible for providing security for several hundred hotel guests who were part of a large tour group. Between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on April 3, 1996, Respondent abandoned his post at the Fontainbleau Hotel. When Mr. Fambrini returned to the hotel to check on the Respondent, he learned that Respondent had left his post. Elite had to secure the services of another guard to complete Respondent’s shift. Respondent testified that he called Elite and told Mr. Buffington that he was leaving his post because of a family emergency. This testimony lacks credibility and is rejected. Mr. Buffington testified, credibly, that he was available in his office the entire afternoon of April 3, 1996, and that Respondent did not call him or anyone else with Elite. In addition, Respondent told Petitioner’s investigator that he abandoned his post at approximately 3:00 p.m. and quit without notice because April 3, 1996, was his first day on the job and he was not happy with his assignment. The conflicts in the testimony are resolved by finding that Respondent abandoned his post on April 3, 1996, without first advising his employer or the management of the hotel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s Class “D” Security License be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Samuel Leon Frederick 1420 Northwest 90 Street Miami, Florida 33147 Honorable Sandra Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
