The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
Findings Of Fact Bennie M. O'Kelley submitted an application to the Division of Licensing, Department of State, for licensure as a Class F, Unarmed Guard. O'Kelley indicated on his application that he had never been arrested, although he had been arrested some 15 times, the last time having been for assault and battery in 1969. In 1969, O'Kelley served 90 days in the Dade County Stockade for assault and battery. O'Kelley introduced evidence that he had been licensed by the Department of State earlier as an Unarmed Guard and stated that he had revealed his misdemeanor arrests on that application. O'Kelley stated that he knew that he could not be licensed if he had been arrested for a felony and assumed that misdemeanors were not disqualifying, and that therefore he did not have to report his misdemeanor conviction and arrests on his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the fact that O'Kelley has had a clean record for the past ten years, the Hearing Officer would recommend that his application for a Class F, Unarmed Guard, license be granted; however, because of O'Kelley's admitted history of being arrested for fighting, the Hearing Officer recommends that favorable consideration not be given to O'Kelley's application for a Class G, Armed Guard, license. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bennie M. O'Kelley 4711 SW 38th Street Hollywood, Florida 33023
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Katrina Morgan, is a female who was employed by Respondent as a probationary Correctional Officer at the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner first worked for the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office from January 2001, through April 1, 2001, as a Correctional Officer. At the time, Petitioner was aware that the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office had a policy that required a Correctional Officer to personally call his or her immediate supervisor at least one hour before the scheduled start of the shift if he or she is unable to report for duty. The policy requires the officer to personally call so that inquiry can be made into how sick he or she is and when the officer might return. The information is necessary so that appropriate numbers of staff can be scheduled and planned for. Unfortunately, Petitioner’s son was involved in a serious traffic accident that resulted in serious injuries to him. As a result of her son’s injuries, Petitioner had many days of absence from her employment. She frequently failed to notify her supervisor when she was unable to report for duty. Such failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding notification in such circumstances. As a result of the policy violations by Petitioner, she received several written warnings from her shift supervisor, then Sergeant Donald Little. In addition to written warnings, Sergeant Little spoke with Petitioner on the telephone about the proper utilization of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call- in policy. Eventually, after several such absences, Lieutenant Johnson contacted Petitioner to tell her that he could not permit Petitioner to stay employed with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and offered her an opportunity to resign. Petitioner verbally resigned her position with the Sheriff’s Office on March 21, 2001, and later faxed her written resignation to the Sheriff’s Office on March 22, 2001. After she left Columbia County, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections where she had, also, been previously employed. She worked for a period of approximately five to six months with the Department of Corrections and decided to return to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office because it would give her better working hours for her family needs. On April 28, 2003, Petitioner reapplied for employment as a Corrections Officer with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Knowing her past performance would be an issue and that attendance was an important issue at the jail, Petitioner stated on her April 28. 2003, application as follows: Was forced to give up my position with the Columbia County Jail back in 2001. If given the opportunity I will do whatever it takes to be sure the Columbia County Jail can depend on me. I will make sure I will report to my shift on time, no matter what the circumstances are, I hope you will give me a second chance to prove you can count on me. In the process of reviewing Petitioner’s background summary the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office became aware of some serious areas of concern in her employment history. Specifically, that she had been terminated from the Department of Corrections (DOC) New River Correctional Institute for attendance problems, and that she had poor work performance and problems with calling in at S&S Food Store. This history caused an initial recommendation against rehiring Petitioner. However, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office was experiencing a severe staff shortage and as a result was desperately in need of new Correctional Officer. Because of the shortage, Petitioner was offered employment with the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner was sworn in by the Sheriff as a Correctional Officer on November 6, 2003, and given a second chance to prove she was dependable. At this ceremony, the Sheriff personally spoke with Petitioner about attendance issues and that she was being given a second chance. In response, Petitioner gave the Sheriff assurances that this time she would comply with policies. The Sheriff told Petitioner that any further attendance problems would be cause for termination. On November 7, 2003, Petitioner began working in the Respondent’s field training program under the direction of Field Training Officer Howard. Beginning on November 19, she was placed on the night shift and assigned Officer Siraq as her field training officer. The field training program uses daily observation reports (DORs) to evaluate new officers through the field training process. The program is a multi-week training program that trains a new officer while on the job. Eventually, the new officer will work all three shifts at the prison. On November 19, 2003, Officer Siraq was not at work due to illness. Therefore, Petitioner was assigned Officer Chad Sessions as her field training officer. Petitioner was working in the control room at the Columbia County Jail with Officer Sessions, who engaged in a series of very explicit phone calls in Petitioner’s presence. In his telephone conversations he made a number of sexually explict statements, including stating he was going to fuck the girl he was speaking about; that he was “the candy man” and that he was coming to have sex with the girl and that he would do so from behind. Petitioner told Officer Sessions several times that she did not want to hear the sexual comments, but he nonetheless continued in his conversation. Officer Sessions engaged in three such phone calls lasting about 20 minutes. After repeating that she did not wish to have to deal with these types of comments, Petitioner left the control room approximately four times so that she did not have to listen to Officer Sessions conversations. On the daily observation report completed by Officer Sessions for that date, Officer Sessions wrote that Petitioner had engaged in several phone calls and breaks and that she needed to improve on staying at her assigned post without as many distractions. Petitioner spoke to Officer Sessions about his comments on the Daily Observation Report and told him that she did not agree with his statements and refused to sign the document because of her disagreement with him. Officer Sessions took the DOR to Corporal Barcia and informed Barcia that Petitioner would not sign the agreement. He thereafter came back to Petitioner and told her that Barcia had ordered the Petitioner to sign the DOR. Petitioner signed the DOR, but did not put any comments on the DOR in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section regarding her disagreement with Officer Sessions or the reason she left her post in the control room. At the end of the shift on the morning of November 20, 2003, Petitioner drafted a memorandum to now Lieutenant Little requesting time off from work. Petitioner did not mention the incidents with Officer Sessions that had occurred on her shift. In the memorandum, Petitioner stated that she had spoken with Beverly Jackson during her swearing-in ceremony regarding specific days off, and that Ms. Jackson had approved the time off. Also, Petitioner spoke to Officer Howard about the incident on the morning after her shift that ended on November 20, 2003. Petitioner told Officer Howard about Officer Sessions’ remarks and the fact that she initially refused to sign the DOR and Corporal Barcia’s orders to sign the DOR. Officer Howard was concerned when Petitioner gave him this information and told her that he would speak with Lieutenant Little. Officer Howard contacted Lieutenant Little to report the information given to him by Petitioner. Lieutenant Little was on vacation and received the call at home. Officer Howard stated that he needed to report this complaint because Petitioner stated she was uncomfortable with the language used by Officer Sessions in the control room. Lieutenant Little advised Officer Howard that the issue would be addressed upon his return from vacation. Upon returning to work on November 24, 2003, Lieutenant Little called a meeting to discuss Petitioner’s complaints about Officer Sessions’ DOR and phone calls. Petitioner attended the meeting, along with Officer Howard and Corporal Barcia. At this meeting, Petitioner stated that she disagreed with the DOR that Officer Sessions had issued her for November 19, 2003. Specifically, she disagreed with the ratings she received on the DOR. Petitioner was asked why she had not included her disagreements in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section of the DOR. After receiving no reply, Lieutenant Little instructed her that she could make those comments on the DOR, but that they would need to be initialed and dated accordingly. In the comments Section, Petitioner wrote: I had three phone calls, each one was no longer than three-four minutes. The phone calls were in regards to my children. (Staying in assigned post) Ofc[.] Sessions had me escorting I/M’s back and forth and taking paperwork to Ms. Morgan and other sections. When Ofc[.] Sessions was on the phone I would exit the main control room because I didn’t want to hear about his personal business. [Initialed: KM and dated 11-24-03] With regard to her complaints regarding Officer Sessions’ personal phone conversations, Petitioner was very vague in her recount at the meeting. Lieutenant Little asked Petitioner to state with particularity her complaint. She was asked to reduce her complaints to writing and to be as factual and detailed as she could so that Lieutenat Little could properly investigate the matter. Petitioner claims that Lieutenant Little instructed her not to be detailed about the incident. However, Petitioner’s recollection is not given any weight. He instructed her to write the incident report at a sergeant’s desk that was available to write her report. Corporal Barcia sat in the room with Petitioner while she wrote the report since the office was also used by him. Petitioner claimed she felt intimidated by the presence of Corporal Barcia. However, Corporal Barcia did nothing to intimidate her. He did not ask questions about her report or read her report. Petitioner’s testimony regarding her feelings of intimidation is not credible. Lieutenant Little forwarded the report up the chain of command to Captain Smithey. Officer Sessions was disciplined for his conduct and reprimanded in writing regarding his unprofessional phone conversations of November 19, 2003. Officer Sessions was also required to write a letter of apology to Petitioner. The letter of apology was also placed in Officer Sessions’ personnel file. Petitioner testified she never received Officer Sessions’ letter of apology. At some point after his return from vacation, Lieutenant Little received Petitioner’s memo requesting leave from work. After he reviewed the memo and noted Petitioner’s statements regarding Ms. Jackson’s approval, Lieutenant Little contacted Ms. Jackson regarding Petitioner’s claim. Ms. Jackson told Lieutenant Little that she had not given any such approval and would not have done so since she did not have the authority to grant leave. Based on the information from Ms. Jackson and the fact that Ms. Jackson has no authority to approve leave requests for any Columbia County Sheriff’s Office employees, Lieutenant Little concluded that Petitioner was untruthful in her statements in the memorandum about time off. Such untruthfulness was a serious matter regarding Petitioner’s appropriateness to remain employed with the Sheriff’s Office. Lieutenant Little was also very concerned with the fact that Petitioner was already requesting time off since her attendance had been an issue in the past and she was being given a second chance for employment. In the meantime, as part of the field training program, Petitioner was assigned Officer Harris as her field training officer for a different shift. On November 28, 2003, only eight working days after being sworn in by the Sheriff, Petitioner became ill with a flu- type illness. There was no credible evidence that she was incapacitated by this illness to the point that she could not personally call her supervisor as the policy required. As in the past, Petitioner failed to report for duty and failed to properly call-in to her supervisor. This failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy for such absences. On November 29, 2003, Officer Harris, noted on Petitioner’s DOR that she exhibited unacceptable performance with regard to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures; namely, Petitioner needed to utilize the proper chain of command when calling-in. Petitioner wished to explain why she did not follow the call-in policy. Below Officer Howard’s comments, Petitioner inserted comments in a section of the DOR designated for field training officers’ use. Because her comments were in the inappropriate Section Petitioner was instructed to white-out the comments and to place them in the proper section titled, “Trainee’s Comments.” The original, whited-out statement read: The morning I called in Officer Howard was contacted first when I called main control. Mrs. Harris wasn't in yet and didn't have her number. When I called back at the main control, I was directed to speak with Corporal Green. The comments that Petitioner rewrote in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section on the same date were significantly changed by Petitioner to read as follows: The morning I was unable to come to work my husband contacted Ofc[.] Howard [and] was instructed to call Mrs. Harris[.] [W}hen he called Mrs. Harris wasn’t in yet so he was instructed to call back in 20 min[utes]. He was told to relay the message to me, for me to call Cpl. Green. I did so at 1:30 p.m. According to this account by Petitioner, she only made one phone call at 1:30 p.m. to her supervisor well-after the start of her shift and in violation of the Sheriff’s Office policy. Petitioner’s phone records reveal that five telephone calls were made on November 28, 2003, with four of them to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Jail. Petitioner testified that her husband, Ralph Morgan, made the first three telephone calls, between the times of 5:39 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. Contray to her comments written on her November 29, 2003, DOR, the Petitioner testified that she telephoned the Jail two times that day, once at 6:24 a.m. and again at 1:20 p.m. However, Petitioner’s memory of the calls she made is not credible, given the more credible written statement she made on the DOR shortly after her absence occurred. Petitioner admits that none of the phone calls, either from Petitioner’s husband or herself complied with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding sick leave. On December 2, 2003, Lieutenant Little sent a memorandum to Captain Smithey recommending that the Petitioner be considered for termination. Lieutenant Little formulated his opinion based upon: Petitioner’s past attendance problems with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office; her most recent failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy with regard to calling-in and attendance; and her untruthfulness with regard to her request for days off. As a result, and based upon the Sheriff’s recent imposition of strict probationary guidelines on Petitioner’s recent hiring Captain Smithey concurred in the recommendation. There was no evidence that either Little’s or Smithey’s actions were related to any complaint Petitioner had made regarding Officer Sessions. Captain Smithey forwarded the recommendation to the Sheriff. The Sheriff consulted with members of his command staff and reviewed Petitioner’s performance during her probationary period. The Sheriff determined that Petitioner had not satisfied the agency’s standards for the probationary period and had failed in the second chance he had given her. On December 3, 2003, the Sheriff withdrew the Petitioner’s appointment as a probationary Corrections Officer. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that the Sheriff’s decision to terminate her had nothing to do with her complaints to Lieutenant Little about Officer Sessions, but was rather based upon Petitioner’s failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedure. She felt that it was Lieutenant Little and other Officers who had conspired against her to get her terminated. However, there was no credible evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy existed. After Petitioner’s termination she contacted the Sheriff to schedule a meeting to discuss her termination. At that meeting, Petitioner spoke with the Sheriff about her complaints regarding Officer Sessions and the issues she had with her DORs. The Sheriff was unaware of the issues she had with Sessions. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that her DOR had been altered or whited-out because she had made complaints to her supervisor in it. Petitioner brought with her to the meeting correct DORs from Officer Sirak as well as the November 29, 2003, DORs. Petitioner told the Sheriff that she believed her DORs were altered in retaliation for a complaint she had made to one of her supervisors. The Sheriff testified that Petitioner did not talk to him about anything with regard to Officer Sessions or sexual harassment during the post-termination meeting. The Sheriff explained to Petitioner that his decision to terminate her was based upon her failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office procedures. With regard to Petitioner’s DORs, the Sheriff made copies and told her that he would look into her concerns. The Sheriff investigated Petitioner’s concerns, but discovered that all of the DORs that had been changed were changed in order to correct errors made on them. There was no credible evidence to the contrary regarding these DORs. The Sheriff did not discover any reason to change his decision regarding Petitioner’s termination. During discovery, Petitioner originally claimed that it was her November 19, 2003, DOR that had been whited-out, and that she had physically witnessed Officer Howard white it out in his office. Petitioner later recanted her testimony and stated that it was in fact her November 29, 2003, DOR which had been whited-out. With regard to her November 29, 2003, DOR being whited-out, Petitioner changed her testimony to reflect that she witnessed Officer Howard white-out the DOR on November 29, 2003. Despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to explain her version of the facts with regard to who did what and when to her DORs, even her modified testimony is inconsistent with the facts on record. The record reflects that Officer Howard was not on duty on November 29, 2003. He was off for the holiday beginning on November 27, 2003. His time card reflects that he was on annual leave for the Thanksgiving holiday starting on November 27, 2003, and that he did not return to work until the following, Monday, December 1, 2003. The 29th was a Saturday and Officer Howard worked weekdays and did not go to the jail on the 29th. Regardless of the fact that Petitioner could not have seen Officer Howard white-out her DOR because he was not at work on the day she specified, Petitioner’s testimony with regard to the DORs themselves also proved to be inconsistent with the facts. Petitioner asserted that the reason her DOR was whited- out was that she had included comments regarding sexual language she had overheard Officer Sessions use on the night of November 19th. However, upon examination of the November 29th DOR in question, it was discovered that Petitioner did not mention anything at all with regard to sexual comments or Officer Sessions, but that the comments she had inserted were actually her attempts at justifying why she had failed to properly call-in to her supervisor the day before. As indicated earlier, the reason the comments were whited-out was that Petitioner had inserted them in a Section designated for field training officer use only. As a result, Petitioner was required to move them to the appropriate Section designated as “Trainee’s Comments.” At hearing, Petitioner produced, after her deposition had already been taken, a new DOR allegedly drafted on November 28, 2003, by Officer Harris. This DOR was not contained in Petitioner’s personnel file and it is not known where the newly discovered DOR came from. There is no record evidence, other than Petitioner’s own assertions, that Petitioner’s November 28th DOR is authentic. Suspiciously, Petitioner did not produce this document in response to Respondent’s Request for Production. Nor did Petitioner mention it in her Answers to Interrogatories. She testified that she did not find it in all her papers until after her deposition. Petitioner’s testimony regarding this newly discovered DOR is not credible. Finally, Petitioner offered evidence regarding purportedly similary-situated employees. These employees were Charles Bailey, Thomas Daughtrey and Chad Sessions. Officer Charles Bailey had been employed with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office two times in his career. During his first employment, Officer Bailey was terminated for attendance problems similar to the problems Petitioner experienced in her employment with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. When Officer Bailey was hired back, he was given strict probationary terms to abide by, including that he: be on time for all scheduled tours of duty; follow all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedures; and to generally abide by all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures. During his second- chance employment Officer Bailey abided by all of the conditions set out for him. He did not abuse sick leave and he called-in properly pursuant to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy when he needed to take leave. Officer Bailey left the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office on good terms after his second employment. Officer Bailey is not similarly situated in any relevant aspects to Petitioner. Unlike Petitioner, Officer Bailey abided by all of his conditions upon rehire and properly followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy when he missed time. Officer Thomas Daughtry was a new employee and in the field officer training program. He was not a second-chance employee. During his training he missed several days, however, despite the fact that Officer Daughtrey missed some days during his training, Officer Daughtrey followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy every time he requested time off. Nevertheless, because he did in fact miss days during his training, Officer Daughtrey was given unsatisfactory reviews and was required to re-do part of his training. Because he properly called in and he was not a second-chance employee, Officer Daughtrey is not similarly situated to Petitioner in any relevant aspects. Officer Chad Sessions was employed two times with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Both times Officer Sessions resigned under good terms. Petitioner has attempted to compare his second employment with that of her second, probationary employment, specifically with regard to a written reprimand Officer Sessions received for failure to follow call-in policy on September 10, 2004. When Officer Chad Sessions was given a reprimand for failing to call-in properly on September 10, 2004, he was not a probationary trainee. Rather, Officer Sessions was a Field Training Officer, and the reason he was unable to phone the jail was due to the phone outages caused by Hurricane Frances. Officer Sessions could not phone the jail and he could not be reached because of the high winds and heavy rain produced by Hurricane Frances. Because Officer Sessions was not a probationary employee, and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident, Lieutenant Little decided to issue him a written reprimand. Furthermore, there is no record evidence that Officer Sessions came to the Sheriff’s Office with a prior termination and a poor employment history similar to that of Petitioner. As a result, Officer Sessions is not similarly situated to Petitioner in all relevant aspects.
Recommendation Based on upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition For Relief should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2005, 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 8th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Katrina R. Morgan 4777 Shavesbluff Road Macclenny, Florida 32063 T.A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be placed on the convicted vendor list.
Findings Of Fact On May 31, 1990, Borden pled guilty to commission of a public entity crime, as defined by Section 287.133(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), for: a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply milk to school boards within Peninsular Florida, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988; a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply milk to school boards within the Florida Panhandle, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988; and a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply dairy products for use at federal military installations within Peninsular Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988. As a corporate entity, Borden was culpable of the crimes committed by its employees or agents. However, as set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, when the crimes came to the attention of Borden's corporate management, Borden cooperated with state and federal investigations and prosecutions of the crimes, promptly terminated the employees and disassociated itself from individuals implicated in the crimes, and promptly paid the damages and penalties resulting from Borden's conviction. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, Borden notified the Department of Management Services within 30 days of its conviction. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, in addition to terminating the employees implicated in the crimes, Borden has instituted self- policing to prevent public entity crimes. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, after a period of suspension by the Defense Logistics Agency of the federal government in relation to Borden's public entity crime, the suspension was terminated, and Borden's Dairy Division has been reinstated as a qualified government contractor. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, Borden has demonstrated its good citizenship with the exception of the public entity crime of which it was convicted. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, other than the public entity crime conviction itself, there was no evidence that it is in the best interest of the public to place Borden on the convicted vendor list.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner for a license as an employee guard should be granted or denied, based upon the grounds for tentative denial stated in the Department's letter dated August 23, 1978. At the hearing, the Department of State introduced the application of Willie F. Scott which stated that Scott had been arrested for driving without a license in 1969. The applicant testified that he had been arrested in 1967 in Miami, Florida for suspicion of armed robbery, that he had been arrested in 1969 in Long Beach, California for driving while intoxicated, had been arrested in 1970 in Atlanta, Georgia for disturbing the peace, had been arrested in Miami, Florida in 1971 for possession of marijuana, and had been arrested in Miami, Florida in 1972 for driving without a license. The Applicant further testified that he had revealed all of the foregoing arrests to his employer or a representative thereof, and that said representative had filled out his application and had advised him not to state these additional arrests. The grounds stated for denial by the Department was falsification of the application for licensure. The issue presented at final hearing was whether the Applicant had falsified his application when he advised his employer of the arrest and the employer, who filled out the application, failed to report the arrests?
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Scott is an Applicant for a license as an employee guard. This includes licensure both as an armed and unarmed guard. Scott signed an application which was presented to the Department of State. The application was filled out by Scott's supervisor, an agent of Scott's employer. Scott revealed his arrest record to the employer's agent who did not include these matters on Scott's application. Although Scott had been arrested several times prior to 1972, his only conviction was for driving while intoxicated while in Long Beach, California while he was in the Marine Corps. Scott served in the United States Marine Corps for two years and was honorably discharged with the rank of lance corporal. During the period of his employment, Scott has been promoted by his employer from patrolman to patrol sergeant. Scott was arrested in 1967 in Miami, in 1969 in Long Beach California, in 1970 in Atlanta, Georgia, and in 1971 in Miami, Florida. His only conviction was for driving while intoxicated in Long Beach, California.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State issue Willie F. Scott Class F and G licenses as an employee guard. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Willie F. Scott 5300 Northwest 33rd Northwest Miami, Florida 33142 Gerald Curington, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Marvin Sirotowitz Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Mitchell was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 8, 1992, and was issued Certificate No. 37-91-502-01. On April 20, 1992, Mitchell applied for a position with the Sumter Correctional Institution. The employment application asked if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor. Mitchell answered "No" and certified that his answers were true, correct and complete. Mitchell also had to file a supplemental application which asks the applicant to list all arrests or convictions, including sealed records. Mitchell filled in N/A. Mitchell again attested that there were no willful misrepresentations, omissions, or falsifications in the supplemental application. Mitchell admits to having been arrested for involuntary battery on June 18, 1964; to having been arrested for strong-armed robbery on May 10, 1965; to having been arrested for disorderly conduct on December 1, 1965; to having been arrested for burglary on January 19, 1966; to having been arrested for deceptive practices on June 15, 1966; to having been arrested for purse-snatching on August 15, 1968; and to having been arrested for attempted deceptive practices on August 27, 1968. All these arrests for various misdemeanors and felonies occurred in Illinois. Mitchell admits not having divulged the arrests from Illinois on his employment application to Sumter Correctional Institution, but he claims that the omission of his arrest history on the employment application was not willful. He further claims that he chose not to list the arrest for deceptive practice on September 28, 1966, because, even though he was sentenced to a year in jail, he was granted a retrial and was cleared. Mitchell also says that he thought he was seventeen when he was arrested in 1962 and therefore did not have to list his arrests because at the time, he was a minor or youthful offender. However, he was twenty-one years old when he was arrested for the burglary and was twenty-three years old when he was arrested for purse-snatching and attempted deceptive practices. Mitchell also claims that despite his criminal history, he did not disclose the information because he had gotten other agencies to run searches of his criminal history background and those searches showed he had no criminal history in Florida. The evidence proves that Mitchell did not disclose his criminal history on the applications because he did not think the criminal history would show up if the agency ran a background check. The rest of his claims are rejected as being unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order suspending the correctional officer certification of Gary L. Mitchell for eighteen months to be imposed retroactively to the September 1, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 29th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2654 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4(1-4); 5-12(5); 13- 15(6); 16 & 17(7); and 19(8). Proposed finding of fact 18 is irrelevant and unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Gary L. Mitchell Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(1); 3(1); and 4(4). Proposed findings of fact 5 and 7-24 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Mitchell 26070 Hayman Boulevard Brooksville, Florida 32602 Steven G. Brady FDLE Regional Legal Advisor 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N209 Hurston Building, North Tower Orlando, Florida 32801 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent whose Social Security Number is 356-48-9981 was certified as a law enforcement office by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 18, 1985 and was issued certificate number 12- 85-222-02. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. On or about April 23, 1987 Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of grand theft in the second degree, a violation Section 812.014, Florida Statutes and dealing in stolen property, a violation of Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was adjudged guilty of these offenses by the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida on April 23, 1987.
Recommendation Having considered the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order revoking the law enforcement officer certification (No. 12-85-222-02) of Respondent, Carey A. Reddick. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 15th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carey A. Reddick 15424 Loomis Harvey, IL 60426 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner’s request for an exemption pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Saunders seeks an exemption for employment in a position for which a security background check is required pursuant to Sections 397.451 and 435.04, Florida Statutes. Presently, Mr. Saunders is employed as an intern human service worker at Reliance House, an adult residential facility located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. In addition to working at Reliance House, Mr. Saunders is enrolled at Gulf Coast Community College working toward a degree as a Certified Addition Associate Professional. Mr. Saunders sought this exemption so that he could work with children receiving substance abuse services. In 1990, Mr. Saunders was charged with and plead nolo contendere to the charges of burglary, possession of burglary tools, and carrying a concealed weapon. Mr. Saunders was placed on two years' probation. In 1991, Mr. Saunders pled guilty to the charges of burglary of a structure, attempted burglary of a structure, grand theft, criminal mischief, and burglary of a business. In 1992, Mr. Saunders was charged with burglary of a liquor store. Mr. Saunders testified that the burglary charge was reduced to a charge of criminal trespass and that he remained under court supervised probation until October, 1996. Mr. Saunders expressed remorse for his criminal behavior and accepted complete responsibility. He also believes that he shares some of the same problems that are exhibited by the residents of Reliance House and that he would be a good role model because he is attempting to correct his life. Christiane LeClair is a background screening coordinator employed by the Department of Children and Families. As part of her duties, Ms. LeClair reviews employment applications to determine if an applicant is worthy of a position of special trust. Ms. LeClair determined that Mr. Saunders was not qualified because of his conviction of grand theft. She also noted that Mr. Saunders has been released from supervision of the courts for only three months and that it is too early to determine if he has been rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order and therein DENY Mr. Saunders’ request for an exemption.DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT 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 12th day of March, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate #11-89-002-01. In February 1990, Samuel O. Best was employed as a police officer by the City of Port St. Joe Police Department. During the early part of February, Respondent accompanied a woman to a local motel where the two shared a room and engaged in sexual intercourse. While the two were in the room, the Respondent thought the woman smoked two and one-half cigarettes. The items she smoked looked like normal cigarettes. However, Respondent was not paying close attention to the woman's activities or any odor of the smoke because he had his mind on more prurient matters. As the two prepared to leave the room, the Respondent, as was his habit, straightened the motel room. The woman had dropped one of her cigarettes on the floor and Respondent picked up the cigarette and placed it in his pocket. The Respondent forgot about the cigarette in his pocket and kept it for approximately two or three days. Around February 8, 1990, the afternoon of the second or third day after his liaison with the woman in the motel, Respondent went to his father's home and sat on the front porch. The Respondent was on duty. While contemplating the bleakness of his life, in part due to the intense personal problems he was having with his wife, Respondent, who was a heavy smoker, began looking for a cigarette to smoke. He found the motel woman's cigarette in the pocket of a shirt he had worn for three days. He pulled it out, looked at it and lit it. During this activity the "insurance man" was walking up to the house. Officer Best thought the substance in the cigarette was tobacco. However, it tasted like perfume and he put the cigarette out after one puff. He then left the porch to get his father for the insurance man. There was an absence of any competent and substantial evidence reflecting the identifying the substance contained in the cigarette as marijuana. Additionally, no changes in Respondent's behavior were noted by any of his fellow officers or supervisors at any time surrounding the events on February 8, 1990. On February 22, 1990, Chief Richter of the Port St. Joe Police Department received a citizen complaint regarding the Respondent. The insurance agent complained that he had observed the Respondent in police uniform on the porch of the Respondent's father's home smoking. That same day, Chief Richter contacted the Respondent and directed him to come to Chief Richter's office to discuss the complaint. Upon his arrival in Chief Richter's office, Chief Richter told the Respondent what the citizen had alleged. 1/ Chief Richter asked the Respondent if he would answer questions regarding the allegation. The Respondent voluntarily agreed. The initial discussion between Officer Best and Chief Richter lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Officer Best's interpretation of what Chief Richter told him was that the Chief had decided that Officer Best had been smoking marijuana. Officer Best thought his Chief would not misinform him, and he did not argue with Chief Richter over the issue of whether or not the substance was marijuana. However, Officer Best did not know with any certainty what the substance was that he had inhaled briefly while sitting on his father's front porch. After the initial discussion, Chief Richter then placed the Respondent under oath and began to question him while tape recording the interrogation. From Respondent's point of view, the reference to marijuana during the interrogation was merely a convenient label for referring to the cigarette he briefly puffed on his father's front porch. Neither the reference or his responses to questions using the term marijuana was intended to be an admission of knowing drug use. Given the Respondent's demeanor at the hearing, it is understandable under the facts of this case, that even with some training in drug identification, Respondent was not able to identify the substance in the cigarette and that he was also very submissive to what he believed to be a superior officer's view of the matter. As a result of the Respondent's statement, he was discharged from his employment with the Port St. Joe Police Department. However, even with the dismissal, the overwhelming evidence in this case is that Respondent remains of good moral character and remains capable of performing his duties and working with his fellow officers. Moreover, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent at any time knowingly possessed or ingested marijuana. Given these facts, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Samuel O. Best be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of December, 1991.
