Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Signe Anthony (Anthony), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately one and one-half years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Anthony. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Anthony had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Anthony and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission'S letter of denial, Anthony filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Anthony denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Anthony on May 9, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had tried marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that on one occasion, at age 13 and while a student in junior high school, Anthony took three or four "drags" from a marijuana cigarette. Other than that one occasion Anthony has not used marijuana or any controlled substance. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission's contention that Anthony's application with the City of Miami for employment as a police officer was denied in 1985 because her pre- employment urinalysis ostensibly proved positive for the presence of marijuana has not been overlooked. However, the proof offered to demonstrate that her urinalysis proved positive for the presence of marijuana was not credible or reliable. Contrasted to such unpersuasive proof was the credible testimony of Anthony that she had used marijuana on but the one occasion during junior high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Anthony's background, that Anthony possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Anthony, currently 26 years of age, used marijuana on one occasion approximately 13 years ago when she was 13 years of age. Such an isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Anthony has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to outstanding, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Anthony has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Signe Anthony, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of June 1989. 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 7th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional Officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Linda Dunham (Dunham), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 26, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Dunham. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Dunham had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Dunham and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Dunham filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Dunham denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Dunham on November 23, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that in 1970 Dunham was traveling with a dinner theatre and would occasionally take amphetamines, which she obtained from a friend, to stay awake. In the early 1970s, Dunham also used marijuana approximately twice a month over a three-year period. After terminating such use in the early 1970s, she did not again use marijuana until 1985 when she tried it one time at a birthday party. Dunham's use of cocaine was sporadic and infrequent, totalling no more than 5 times over the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. Other than as heretofore found, Dunham has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Dunham's background, that Dunham possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her prior use of controlled substances. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Dunham, born January 22, 1953, was 18-20 years of age when she used amphetamines and marijuana in the early 1970s, and her use of cocaine was limited to approximately five times during the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. But for having tried marijuana one more time in 1985, Dunham has not otherwise used controlled substances. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Dunham's use of controlled substances was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Dunham has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Dunham was certified by the Commission on June 17, 1988, for completion of the 675-hour basic correctional officer course, and has received two commendations during the course of her employment with the County. She is current on all her financial obligations, and otherwise enjoys a good reputation in the community. Overall, Dunham has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Linda Dunham, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent correctional officer’s license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John W. Bradley, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida, holding Law Enforcement Certificate License No. 165671. He has not previously had his license disciplined. Around midnight on February 8, 2000, Officer Danny R. Alsobrooks, DUI Officer, Panama City Police Department, was called to the 4800 block of West Highway 98 by Corporal Victor Melvin of the Panama City Police Department for suspicious drunk driving by the Respondent. Officer Alsobrooks was informed by Corporal Victor Melvin that Respondent had been driving erratically and had an odor of alcohol on his breath. Upon arrival to the scene, Officer Alsobrooks noticed that Respondent was seated and in control of a black Toyota pickup. Officer Alsobrooks began performing field evaluations to assess the sobriety of Respondent. He too noticed an odor of alcohol on Respondent’s breath. Officer Alsobrooks had Respondent perform the one legged stand evaluation. He explained to Respondent what to do. He asked the Respondent to count one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three. The Respondent, however, counted one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. Additionally, Respondent hopped during the evaluation and used his arms to maintain his balance. Petitioner’s behavior indicated that he was impaired. Officer Alsobrooks then demonstrated to Respondent the stance for the walk-and-turn evaluation. Respondent was unsteady and unable to maintain balance while he performed the walk and turn; he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, failed to touch heel to toe numerous times, made an improper turn, and failed to touch heel to toe in his return steps. Again his behavior indicated that he was impaired. Officer Alsobrooks concluded that Respondent was too impaired to operate a motor vehicle and placed him under arrest. Respondent was transported to the Bay County Jail. Upon arrival at the jail, Officer Alsobrooks had the Respondent complete the Implied Consent Warning form, waited for a 20-minute period of time and then escorted Respondent to the Intoxilyzer room to perform a breath test. The first Intoxilyzer test failed due to the presence of mouth alcohol. Therefore, the Intoxilyzer machine did not return a result. Officer Alsobrooks waited another 20 minutes before performing more Intoxilyzer tests. The tests were performed at three-minute intervals and indicated a blood alcohol level of .135, .167, and .159. Respondent offered no credible evidence to dispute these results. These results combined with Respondent's performance on the field tests demonstrated Respondent was unlawfully operating a motor vehicle while he was impaired in violation of Section 316.1932, Florida Statutes. Upon the receipt of the results, Officer Alsobrooks issued a Florida DUI Uniform Traffic Citation No. 444309-X against Respondent, completed and signed a Breath Test Result Affidavit, an Alcohol Influence Report, and a narrative regarding Respondent’s arrest. The criminal charges against Respondent resulted in a Plea Bargain Agreement in Absentia and an Order on Plea in Absentia by the Court. Respondent pled to reckless driving. The penalties included completing DUI school. The evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent has had any other arrests or convictions of any crime. Nor did the evidence show that Respondent had more than one DUI or was habitually driving and drinking. No other evidence regarding Respondent’s moral character was offered by the Petitioner. Without such evidence, one DUI is insufficient to demonstrate that a person is of bad moral character or even raise a presumption that a person is of bad moral character. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 28th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Bradley 3555 Peony Lane Greenwood, Florida 32443 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas F. Gorman, Jr., was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-33145 on March 22, 1983. When the events herein occurred, Gorman was employed as a police officer for the City of Vero Beach. On an undisclosed date in 1985, but prior to May 28, 1985, the husband of Kristie Coleman made a complaint with the Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) that his eighteen year old wife had been sexually harassed by a black police officer. After being told the City had no black police officers, the husband then apparently identified respondent, who is white, as being the culprit. An investigation of the husband's complaint was conducted by the VBPD, but it was unable to "verify" the charges. The VBPD then decided to initiate a separate investigation of respondent. To do so, it solicited the aid and assistance of Kristie Coleman, who, at the insistence of the chief of police, agreed to wear a concealed microphone on her person. The purpose of the microphone was allegedly to investigate and intercept evidence of a criminal act on the part of Gorman. Kristie was instructed to stand outside her apartment whenever she saw respondent drive by in his police car so as to make herself visible to respondent. The police chief was explicit in his instructions that their encounter take place while Gorman was on duty. At the same time, two surveillance teams were placed on or near Kristie's premises, one in her bedroom and the other outside her apartment, and they activated recording equipment designed to monitor and record conversations between the two. She was also instructed to tell Gorman that she had to use the bathroom if he entered her apartment and placed a hand on her leg. This was a predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room and make their presence known to Gorman. There was no court order approving the use of the concealed microphone. At approximately 6:38 p.m. on May 28, 1985, respondent drove by Kristie's apartment. It is stipulated that respondent was in uniform and on duty at that time. Upon seeing Kristie emerge from her apartment, Gorman stopped and the two began a conversation. During the course of the evening Gorman left the premises and returned six separate times after the first visit at 6:38 p.m. These return visits occurred at 7:08 p.m., 7:34 p.m., 8:22 p.m., 8:59 p.m., 9:04 p.m. and 9:20 p.m. However, it was not until the seventh visit that Gorman actually entered Kristie's apartment. On each visit, their conversations were recorded by the hidden microphone worn by Kristie. The transcript of the conversation was not transcribed by the parties, and portion of the recorded conversation are inaudible due to external noises such as traffic and the engine noise of respondent's vehicle. As a result of the VBPD surveillance activities, respondent was offered a choice of being terminated from the police force or voluntarily resigning. Gorman chose the latter. The administrative complaint herein was then filed by petitioner thereby prompting the formal hearing in this matter. It charges that Gorman "did agree with Kristina Coleman to engage in sexual intercourse with her in Kristina's apartment while the Respondent was on duty as a Vero Beach police officer." The tape reveals that Gorman and Coleman had known each other, at least by sight, prior to May 28, 1985. The two had also recently met when Gorman, while on duty, stopped Coleman one evening for a suspected moving violation. However, she was not ticketed by Gorman, and at that time Coleman told Gorman she wanted to see him again. Throughout the tape recorded meetings on May 28, Coleman repeatedly attempted to get Gorman to acknowledge that he had not given her a ticket in return for sexual favors. Gorman denied this was true each time the subject was raised, and there is no evidence to indicate that was the case. As noted earlier, the tape recording is not of the highest quality, and several parts of the conversation are either inaudible or partially obscured by other noises. Nonetheless, the following relevant facts are found from the more than one hour of recorded conversations, most of which were nothing more than casual conversation between the two. After several return visits to her apartment that evening, Gorman made several Flattering comments to Kristie, such as how "beautiful" she was, that she had a nice personality, and how Gorman was attracted to her. Gorman asked if he could see her after he was off-duty, but Kristie declined. As the evening went on, Kristie told Gorman that her sister would arrive at her apartment at 11:00 p.m. to spend the night, and that the few hours before 11.00 p.m. would be the "only time" she had to meet with him. Although Gorman was reluctant to go to her apartment while on duty, Kristie told him that once she got "started," she wanted Gorman to finish the job. She also asked him if he was "too chicken-shit to come into (her) house." On his last visit to her apartment that evening, Gorman accepted her offer to come into the apartment. After taking off his gun and holster at Kristie's request, and declining an offer of a beer from Kristie, Gorman then said what appears to the undersigned to be "Let's do it." Kristie then gave the predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room. No sexual intercourse occurred and there is no evidence that respondent was charged with a violating any state or municipal law by the foregoing conduct. There was no specific reference to sexual intercourse in the conversations, although it can be reasonably inferred that Kristie was suggesting this to Gorman, and that he intended to accept her offer. There was no evidence that Gorman's conduct constituted what the agency perceived to be a lack of good moral character within the meaning of its rules or governing statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against Thomas F. Gorman, Jr. be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wayne R. McDonough, Esquire P. O. Box 1690 Fort Pierce, Florida 32960 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case No.: 85-3590 CJSTC Case No.: L-33145 THOMAS F. GORMAN, JR., Certificate Number: 02-33145 Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to be decided here concerns the Petitioner, Barbara A. James' entitlement to be allowed to receive in transfer a Series 2-COP beverage license for a premises known as Ringside Bar in Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1979, the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, applied to the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to receive an alcoholic beverage license. The details of that application may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the personal questionnaire executed in the course of the application process. This application was for the transfer of license 23-777 for a licensed premises known as the Ringside Bar located at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida. The Petitioner is the owner of the Ringside Bar in which she has placed an initial downpayment of $7,500.00 and financed an amount of $18,000.00 with an additional $10,000.00 in improvements having been made to the bar. After reviewing the license application, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the transfer of the license on December 31, 1979. In his statement of denial the Director based his decision on the belief that the applicant, Barbara A. James, was not thought to be of good moral character within the meaning of Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner took issue with that determination by the Director and this led to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing held herein. At present, in addition to being the owner of the Ringside Bar, the Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Container Company of Sebring, Florida, and works in the sales and promotional aspect of that company. The company manufactures egg containers. In total time of employment, the Petitioner has worked for the Florida Container Company for a period of thirteen (13) months. The Petitioner was not actively employed by that company at the time of the request for license transfer. For approximately ten (10) years prior to her employment with this employer, the Petitioner had worked as a cocktail waitress and barmaid in various establishments in Tampa, Florida. In the past the Petitioner has had a number of arrests for various offenses. Around 1965 or 1966 the Petitioner was arrested for prostitution in Indianapolis, Indiana. Petitioner's explanation of this matter offered during the course of the hearing was to the effect that she was living in a rooming house when the police came to that location and arrested everyone there because of the authorities' suspicion that one or two of the girls who were living there were engaging in prostitution. The Petitioner denied engaging in prostitution. The charges were dismissed, according to the Petitioner, and there is no evidence to contradict this statement by the Petitioner. In 1970 Ms. James was arrested for disturbing the peace and this case was dismissed. In 1975 the Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct by the Tampa Police Department and was subsequently fined $25.00. This incident involved a dispute with her roommate, in which James and her roommate had a fight. On April 25, 1978, in Tampa, Florida, the Petitioner was arrested for offering to commit prostitution. The disposition of that case in the courts was that the Petitioner entered a plea of nolle contendere to the offense and was required to pay a fine. There was no adjudication of guilt in that matter. In the course of the hearing sub judice, the Petitioner stated that the reason she entered her nolle contendere plea was for reason that her attorney advised her that it was the easiest and quickest thing to do and it would be like it didn't happen. James further stated that if she had known that it would he held against her she would have contested it, meaning the charge of attempting to commit prostitution. The facts of the incident of April 25, 1978, reveal that officers of the Tampa Police Department on that date went to a bar known as the Huddle Lounge, which is located on North Dale Mabry in Tampa, Florida, to investigate possible acts of prostitution that were occurring in the bar. The two officers, Halstead and Slater, entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. At that time Officer Halstead noticed a woman identified as Troy Taylor who was smiling at Officer Halstead. Halstead and Slater then went to the table where Troy Taylor was located and took a seat. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner came to the table and entered into the conversation that was being conducted. While the Petitioner was present, Taylor discussed with the two officers the arrangement for a "date" between the officers, Taylor and the Petitioner. Use of the word "date" meant the making of arrangements for the women to commit acts of prostitution. Taylor stated that the price for the "date" would be fifty dollars ($50.00) for each officer and told the officers to follow them to the apartment of the woman which would be used for the "date". Taylor and the Petitioner left in their automobile and the officers followed them to the apartment of Taylor and the Petitioner. Once inside the apartment, Taylor asked the officers which officer was going to go with what woman and then stated to Halstead that he should go with her. The Petitioner then went with Officer Slater into her bedroom. When in the bedroom, Slater asked James about the money which had been discussed in the bar as a payment for the act of prostitution. James told the officer to place the money on the bookshelf and she then removed her clothes. The amount of money that was placed there was fifty dollars ($50.00). James instructed the officer to take off his clothes and he complied with her request. She asked him to go into the bathroom and when in the bathroom she stated that she would have to examine his genitalia to determine if he was clean and if he had "V.D." She examined his penis and took him back into the bedroom and told him to lie down. The officer then asked James what he would get for his fifty dollars ($50.00) and in response James told him on several occasions to lie down. She then removed his shorts and moved her head toward the area of his penis, at which he asked what he would get for the fifty dollars ($50.00) by the question, "Half and half?", meaning oral sex and intercourse, to which the Petitioner responded, "Yes." The officer then stated that he had changed his mind and got up from the bed and placed the Petitioner under arrest.
Recommendation IT IS RECOMMENDED that the request by the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, to transfer the alcoholic beverage license associated with the Ringside Bar at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida, into her name as licensee be DENIED. 3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Roberto Mera (Mera), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Mera. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Mera had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Mera and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Mera filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Mera denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Mera on April 16, 1987, at which time he divulged that he had used marijuana one time in 1977, that he had used cocaine one time in 1982, and that he had purchased a stolen VCR for $100 in 1982. While the used VCR he purchased was apparently stolen property, Mera did not know such fact when he purchased it, and turned it over to the police when they advised him it was stolen property. Other than heretofore noted, Mera has never used marijuana or cocaine. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Mera's background, that Mera possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidents. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Mera, born August 20, 1963, used marijuana one time 12 years ago when he was 14-15 years of age, and cocaine one time 7 years ago when he was 19 years of age. At no time did he knowingly purchase stolen property. Such isolated and dated usage of marijuana and cocaine can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Mera has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Mera has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Roberto Mera, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated January 31, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Dieguez is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Sweetwater Police Department. As such, he holds a position of high trust. Dieguez abused that trust by failing to maintain good moral character. Specifically, he sexually abused a minor over a period of years, and lied under oath to law enforcement officers investigating the abuse. For almost a decade, Dieguez was in a relationship of trust with a young girl (the victim). Dieguez abused that trust by taking advantage of his access to the victim to sexually violate her on repeated occasions, beginning when she was well below the age of consent. Dieguez maintained the victim's silence by virtue of his position of authority over her. More specifically, at all times material to this case, Dieguez is the primary breadwinner for the victim, the victim's mother, and the victim's two siblings. Dieguez alternated acts of kindness and generosity toward the victim with threats and intimidation. Dieguez also left a paper trail which, for reasons set forth below, provided clear and convincing evidence of his guilty knowledge of his improper conduct toward the victim. Dieguez created at least three documents which he referred to as "contracts" between himself and the victim. The contracts first came to light on February 15, 2001, when the victim's mother accompanied her daughter to the Metro-Dade Police Department to lodge an abuse complaint against Dieguez. At that time, the victim told investigators, "He wrote me contracts, like stating something in return, like touching my vagina, having sexual intercourse, or me to ejaculate him." In the context of Dieguez' relationship with the victim and, more significantly, in considering the "contracts" as a whole, it is clear that the contracts were part of an ongoing scheme by Dieguez to induce the victim to continue to submit to him sexually, and to maintain silence about the abuse. Within days of filing the complaint, the victim's mother had a change of heart. Henceforth, and through the date of the hearing, she impeded the investigation by actively discouraging her daughter from cooperating with investigators. Dieguez was nevertheless questioned under oath about the abuse allegations by duly-authorized investigating officers. He denied any improper conduct towards the victim. In May 2001, three documents matching the victim's description of the "contracts" were found in the trunk of Sweetwater police vehicle number 953. Specifically, the documents were located underneath a lining attached to the spare tire compartment. Vehicle number 953 had previously been assigned to Dieguez. The handwriting on the documents was matched to Dieguez. The "contracts," which were admitted into evidence without objection, speak loudly regarding the improper nature of Dieguez' relationship to the victim. At the time of the final hearing, the victim, then 19, testified in support of Dieguez, claiming that she had lied to investigators, and to friends, about having been abused by him. By the time of the hearing, the victim had, as one of the investigating officers put it, "flipped twice" as to whether she had in fact been abused by Dieguez. The victim was accompanied to the hearing by an attorney, who entered an appearance on her behalf but made no motions. The victim's mother was also present with Respondent. The trier-of-fact carefully observed the young woman's demeanor under oath and has no hesitation in saying that her purported denial of abuse served instead to corroborate the "contracts" in which Dieguez documents the true and improper nature of his conduct toward the victim. The victim was plainly in distress as she gave her testimony. She claimed, unpersuasively, not to remember details of her allegations, nor of the investigation itself. She claimed not to have spoken with her mother about her allegations against Dieguez at any time after February 15, 2001. In fact, she denied speaking to anybody about the allegations, including the attorney who was present on her behalf. Under all the circumstances, the "contacts" in Dieguez' handwriting affirmatively and compellingly demonstrate the unreliability of the victim’s in court denial of abuse. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that officers who lack good moral character may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. Making a false statement under oath is an independent ground upon which a law enforcement officer's license may be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dieguez's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 12th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teri Guttman Valdez, Esquire 1550 Madruga Avenue, Suite 323 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida, Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Johnny Johnson (Johnson), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately three years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Johnson. Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Johnson had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. 3/ By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Johnson and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Johnson filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Johnson denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency record, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a preemployment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Johnson on May 14, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana on two occasions. At that time he estimated the date he last used marijuana to have been 1972; however, the proof demonstrates that he misapprehended the date of last usage, and that the proper date was December 1970. His last use consisted of "passing a joint" ,with some college friends when he was 23 years of age. Prior to that, he had used marijuana once while a solider in Vietnam. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Johnson's background, that Johnson possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana over 18 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Johnson used marijuana two times, the last time being over 18 years ago when he was 23 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Currently, Johnson has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Johnson was employed as an administrative assistant by Dade County, Department of County and Economic Development, for two and one-half years. He has been certified as a substitute teacher in Dade County since 1982, and has been a member of the Air Force Reserve for three years, with several letters of commendation Overall, Johnson has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Johnny Johnson, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Willie Joe Williams lives in Laurel Hill in northern Okaloosa County, Florida. He considers himself to be of good moral character, and his wife concurs. In 1972 and again in 1975, however, he was arrested for possession of moonshine which belonged to his wife, Rosa May Williams. These arrests did not result in convictions because petitioner turned state's evidence. On October 24, 1975, an order was entered withholding adjudication of guilt and placing petitioner on 18 months' probation on charges of possession of moonshine. In 1966, petitioner was arrested for the reckless display of a firearm. A $35.00 cash bond posted on the day of the arrest was later estreated. Also in 1966, petitioner was arrested for "Non Support." On November 30, 1979, petitioner was arrested for possession of unstamped cigarettes, possession of alcoholic beverages with the intent to see without a license, and sale of alcoholic beverages without a license. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. The Kool cigarettes petitioner had in his possession on November 30, 1979, had acquired in Alabama just across the border. Petitioner pleaded guilty, and was adjudicated guilty of possession of alcoholic beverages for resale without a license and of possession of unstamped cigarettes; and he was place on one year's probation. The beer for possession of which petitioner was convicted belonged to his wife.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Pascoe, Esquire 120 Wellington Road Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
