Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution within the custody and control of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Respondent stipulated at final hearing that Petitioner has "standing" to maintain the rule challenge proceeding. The parties also stipulated that the rule under challenge in this proceeding is a rule adopted by Respondent in accordance with the settlement reached in a previous administrative rule challenge proceeding in which Petitioner was a party. The parties further stipulated that ". . . inmates within the Respondent's care enjoy meaningful access to the courts." There are presently approximately 2,500 inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. There is one Xerox machine located in the law library at Union Correctional Institution, and the librarian has two inmate clerks assigned to assist in the operation of the library. There is insufficient money in the library budget to fund either additional copying machines or additional personnel to assist in copying materials other than those authorized under Respondent's rule.
The Issue The issues are 1) whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, 2) whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is seeking employment with The Arc of Alachua County, a service provider regulated by APD. Petitioner’s desired employment is to work as a direct service provider, which requires compliance with background screening requirements. The results of Petitioner’s background screening identified a history of criminal offenses. Petitioner received notification via letter dated April 4, 2016, from the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Respondent’s background screening entity, of her disqualification from employment due to a criminal history. The specific disqualifying offense listed in the letter was Larceny (a violation of section 810.014, Florida Statutes (2016)1/). Florida’s Legislature has designated certain criminal offenses as disqualifying offenses, which would prevent an individual from working as a direct service provider. However, an individual may seek an exemption from the employment disqualification. The granting of an exemption from employment disqualification would allow for Petitioner’s employment as a direct service provider to APD clients. APD’s clients are a vulnerable population, consisting of those individuals whose developmental disabilities are statutorily defined as: intellectual disability, autism, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and/or Phelan-McDermid Syndrome. See § 393.063(12), Fla. Stat. Without APD’s services, these clients would otherwise require institutionalization. APD’s clients often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve; consequently, employment as a direct service provider to APD clients is regarded as a position of special trust. APD is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust as direct service providers for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. See §§ 110.1127(2)(c)1. and 393.0655, Fla. Stat. Many of the tasks direct service providers perform for, and/or assist individuals with disabilities with, include those of a social, personal needs, and/or financial nature. APD relies on DCF to initially receive exemption from employment disqualification requests and compile documents received related to such requests. On or around May 10, 2016, Petitioner submitted a Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, a copy of her criminal record, character references, and other various documents (the Exemption Packet) to DCF in order to demonstrate support for the granting of an exemption from employment disqualification. DCF subsequently forwarded the Exemption Packet to APD for review. In beginning its exemption review, APD considered Petitioner’s disqualifying offense. Specifically, in December 1982, Petitioner committed the disqualifying offense of Larceny/Grand Theft (a violation of section 810.014). The court’s final disposition of the case included the withholding of adjudication of guilt, two years’ probation, and payment of costs. In its continued exemption review pursuant to section 435.07(3)(b), Florida Statutes, APD considered the following non- disqualifying offenses which Petitioner committed subsequent to her December 1982 disqualifying offense: an arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes); a second arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); a conviction for Worthless Check on December 24, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); an arrest for Driving While License Suspended/Revoked in June 1996 (a violation of section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes); an arrest for Worthless Check in January 2007 (a violation of section 832.05(4)(a)); and an arrest for Violation of Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court in August 2012 (a violation of section 741.31(4)(a), Florida Statutes). The Disqualifying Offense Petitioner provided an account of her disqualifying offense, Larcency/Grand Theft, in an addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire, dated August 3, 2015. Petitioner indicated in her account that she relocated to Tampa from Gainesville. She was 22 years old, single, and employed with the State of Florida. She became roommates with another female who was attending college at the University of South Florida. Petitioner stated “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner further explained that she received a two- year term of probation and completed all her court-ordered sanctions within a year. Petitioner also noted that “[s]ince that time, I have not committed any further crimes.” Petitioner provided the following record concerning her disqualifying offense: state attorney court record (13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, State Attorney). The Non-Disqualifying Offenses Court records received in evidence indicate a total of six non-disqualifying offenses as previously mentioned. Petitioner did not disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, nor did she provide accounts for such on the Exemption Questionnaire, despite the directions specifically requiring an applicant to do so. Petitioner did not provide records of her non- disqualifying offenses. Records of those offenses were obtained by APD as part of its detailed review process. Records of the non-disqualifying offenses obtained included: worthless check affidavit, witness form, copies of check, and no information filed court filing (Sears 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, and copy of check (Pic’n Save 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, and court judgment (Pic’n Save 12/24/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, copy of court diversion judgment and supporting documentation, and copy of dismissal of charge (Publix 1/30/2007); and warrant affidavit for arrest (Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, August 2012). Petitioner indicated that she has no current involvement with any court system; specifically, she stated “I have not experienced any criminal charges since my last event in 1982.” Regarding whether there was any degree of harm to any victim or property, including damage or injuries, Petitioner stated “I have not experienced any harm or damage to anyone or any property since my last event in 1982.” In answering the question about stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying incident, Petitioner indicated that there were none, other than being on probation. Regarding whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner stated “I have no current stressors with the law.” Petitioner indicated that her current support system and living arrangements include being married and having one daughter and numerous grandchildren. Petitioner also explained that her community activities/volunteer efforts include volunteering with the school system (field trips/activities) and attending church and performing functions for the church’s treasury department. Regarding educational and training achievements, Petitioner stated that she graduated from high school, started a career with the State of Florida, and attended a word processing/information course where she received the Most Outstanding Student Award. The Exemption Questionnaire asks whether an applicant has ever received counseling for any reason. Petitioner indicated that she has not received counseling for any reason; if she felt stress, she would call the Employee Assistance Program. Petitioner noted she has not experienced any “major post- traumatic [stress].” As to whether she has used and/or abused drugs or alcohol, Petitioner replied that she has “not abused any type of drugs or alcohol in [her] life.” Petitioner indicated the following regarding feeling remorse/accepting responsibility for her actions: “I am the type of person to feel remorse towards everything and every person that I have contact with. I always take full responsibility for any action(s) that I encounter when I am in the wrong.” The Exemption Questionnaire asks for an applicant’s prior three years’ work history. Petitioner provided the following information: 4/2016 to 5/2016--The Arc of Alachua County (support tech/direct care); 11/2007 to 7/2014--DCF--North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center (Human Services Worker III); 3/2004 to 7/2007—DCF--State of Florida Foster Care (word processor/data management specialist); 4/1998 to 9/2003-- American Psychiatric Association (membership coordinator/secretary). In addition to the criminal record submitted, Petitioner also provided the following additional documents that were included in her Exemption Packet: local law background checks, a volunteer award (Head Start), three letters of reference attesting to Petitioner’s character, and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The letters were written by persons who have known Petitioner for several years; they described Petitioner as devoted, loyal, honest, kind, and trustworthy. Finally, Petitioner submitted a copy of an exemption letter she received from DCF, dated February 12, 2016. Leslie Richards, regional operations manager for APD’s Northeast Region, advised that APD reviewed all documentation provided by Petitioner in her Request for Exemption, the information indicated in Petitioner’s Exemption Questionnaire, the various records documenting Petitioner’s criminal history, her volunteer award, character letters, and exemption from DCF. Following a review of Petitioner’s Exemption Packet, Agency Director Barbara Palmer, advised Petitioner by a letter dated September 26, 2016, that her request for an exemption from her disqualifying offense was denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. Petitioner sent APD a request for hearing on or around October 11, 2016. APD received this request timely and subsequently forwarded this appeal to DOAH. Along with her request for hearing, Petitioner submitted a personal statement explaining her reasons for disputing the denial and requesting the hearing, a copy of the denial letter, and a copy of a training certificate summary for APD-approved courses through her former employer, the Arc of Alachua County. At hearing, Ms. Richards explained APD’s process of reviewing exemption requests and the consideration of Petitioner’s application for such. Per Ms. Richards, APD considers the disqualifying offense, the circumstances surrounding the offense, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating that the applicant will not present a danger if employment is allowed. Additionally, Ms. Richards testified that APD looks for consistency in the applicant’s account of events in his or her Exemption Questionnaire, the passage of time since the disqualifying incident, whether the applicant accepts responsibility for his/her actions, and whether the applicant expresses remorse for his or her prior criminal acts. Because an applicant will be occupying a position of special trust if granted an exemption, APD weighs all of these factors in its determination. Ms. Richards testified that all of Petitioner’s submissions were reviewed and taken into consideration; she noted that the starting point of APD’s review began with the date of the disqualifying offense and any criminal conduct occurring thereafter. Ms. Richards emphasized that in APD’s review, it was noted that Petitioner failed to disclose sufficient details of the account of her disqualifying offense. Specifically, Petitioner provided what appeared to be background information about the time frame surrounding the offense and the person whom she committed the offense with, but indicated in her statement “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner provided other details about this time in her life, but nothing specific about the crime itself. Ms. Richards stated that it left APD with a concern that Petitioner was not forthright with disclosure of the circumstances involving the crime. Ms. Richards also explained that APD took note that Petitioner failed to disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, and that this fact was also of concern. APD obtained records of the non-disqualifying offenses and considered them in its review. Ms. Richards noted that the nature of the offenses, particularly the Worthless Checks and the Violation of the Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court, were troubling because those offenses involved monetary transactions and interpersonal relations. Ms. Richards observed that the individuals APD serves are highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and a person who is in a role as a direct service provider would be assisting those individuals in a social and financial capacity. APD reviewed Petitioner’s involvement with three DCF investigations involving allegations of abuse toward a vulnerable adult, Petitioner’s spouse. Although there were no findings against Petitioner in these cases, based on the issues presented, DCF did make the recommendation for Petitioner to pursue family counseling. Ms. Richards noted that there is no evidence that Petitioner followed through with DCF’s recommendation, and by Petitioner’s own admission on the Exemption Questionnaire, has “not received counseling for any reason.” In addition to both the criminal offense and DCF- related information, APD noted Petitioner’s less than stellar driving record. Ms. Richards advised that a direct service provider will often be in a position to transport clients, and Petitioner’s driving record reflects a series of both moving and non-moving violations, which pose a concern. The record reflects a total of five driving-related violations: driving while license suspended/revoked (previously mentioned); tag not assigned (criminal traffic); red light camera citation; unlawful speeding; and a second red light camera citation. Ms. Richards testified regarding APD’s consideration of Petitioner’s prior employment history with DCF, and the subsequent exemption for employment granted to Petitioner by DCF. At hearing, APD presented employment evaluations and records of written disciplinary action taken against Petitioner by DCF while in its employ. Ms. Richards specifically noted that some of the disciplinary issues for which Petitioner was cited included: sleeping on the job while employed at a forensic facility; not securing the front door of a building at a forensic facility; tardiness; inappropriately streaming media on a state-owned computer; insubordination (refusal to work a shift); failure to report to work; and poor performance/negligence (failure to answer phones/answer front door of facility). Petitioner ultimately was dismissed from DCF due to her inability to perform her job functions because of an injury. Ms. Richards explained that these disciplinary issues gave APD great pause in considering granting Petitioner an exemption, as they were indicators for potential behaviors that could pose a great risk to individuals served by APD, many of whom are unable to communicate their wants and needs. The setting in which Petitioner committed these workplace violations mirrors those in which clients of APD are served. Ms. Richards did state that APD considered the exemption granted by DCF to Petitioner, however, the weight of the prior disciplinary issues outweighed that decision when compared to the possible jeopardy in which APD clients could be placed. Should Petitioner obtain future successful employment with DCF, APD would consider that in a subsequent exemption application review. Petitioner testified on her own behalf at the hearing. She spoke about the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offense, reiterating her statement from the addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire. She provided no new information or surrounding details about the crime. Again, she stated that she has not had any legal issues since 1982. Regarding her non- disqualifying offenses, Petitioner remarked that she “didn’t consider those bad checks as crimes,” and though she denied being convicted of such, she admitted having overdrafted checks. Petitioner also stated that regarding the DCF investigations and the Injunction Violation/Contempt of Court charge, “that’s not why we are here today, so I am not going to talk about that.” Petitioner did admit to the driving infractions on her record, but stated that two of them, running red lights, were due to the fault of her daughter, as she was the driver at the time, rather than Petitioner. Petitioner stated that she is older and wiser and has changed. She enjoyed working at the adult day care program with the Arc of Alachua County. She indicated that any bad checks she has written, she “took care of.” Petitioner offered explanations for the disciplinary situations involving her prior employment with DCF, attempting to minimize her role. She explained that she and her husband, who Petitioner described as a vulnerable, disabled adult, no longer have domestic issues; however, they are currently homeless. Petitioner stated that APD’s denial is keeping her in an adverse financial situation, stating “I cannot find a job right now because of this denial.” When cross- examined by counsel regarding her ability to obtain gainful employment with DCF and its covered providers, Petitioner admitted that she can seek a job under DCF’s purview. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses. Her sister, Sherry McCrae, a retired police officer, stated that she lived with her sister the entire time she was in college; Petitioner provided a source of support to her during this period. Ms. McCrae stated that her sister has been working all the years since the disqualifying incident. She affirmed that their maiden name is Williams, Petitioner’s last name at the time of the disqualifying incident. Petitioner’s second witness, Faye Williams, testified that after Petitioner’s disqualifying incident, she got a job and was active in the community. Petitioner has a desire “to be a part of something.” She loves people, especially children. Petitioner asserted that she enjoys working with individuals with disabilities; at her last place of employment, she believed she found her “purpose and mission.” She loves helping people. She admits she made some mistakes, but that was long ago. Petitioner argued that she “really only committed one crime”; she has rehabilitated herself and that should be enough for APD. She believes APD abused its discretion in denying her request for exemption. The individuals APD serves are vulnerable and highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, due to their developmental disabilities. APD’s representative observed that APD’s clients must be assigned to direct care providers without fear of their endangerment. This necessarily requires reliance on a caregiver’s good character and trustworthiness. Individuals who provide direct care are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Ms. Richards cautioned that Petitioner’s criminal history reflects a pattern of poor judgment. Petitioner’s failure to disclose certain details in her account regarding her disqualifying offense calls into question her trustworthiness. Additionally, failure to disclose her non-disqualifying offenses, along with a failure to recognize that those offenses are truly crimes, is not only troubling, but calls into question Petitioner’s trustworthiness. It also demonstrates a complete lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her actions. Petitioner did not admit to any of the harm she caused to her victims. Petitioner’s minimization of the discipline she received while employed by DCF also gives great pause, as the individuals she was charged with caring for were clients in a forensic setting, a clear parallel to the clients she would serve should an exemption be granted by APD. Petitioner’s multiple driving citations are concerning as well, and demonstrate a pattern of questionable decision- making, especially when considering her for a position where she could potentially transport clients. All of the aforementioned factors, along with proximity in time of her application to her last arrest (2012), caused APD to question Petitioner’s fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible, the most vulnerable population in the state. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, and therefore, the denial of the exemption was proper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities issue a final order upholding the denial of Petitioner’s exemption request. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed May 28, 1986, Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) charged that Respondent, Theodore Riley (Riley), while employed as an adjuster by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Group, (USF&G), did wrongfully obtain the sum of $400 from a workmens compensation claimant to assure that USF&G would not contest the claim (Count I). The complaint further alleged that on September 16, 1985, Riley entered a plea of nolo contendere to an information charging a violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, a felony of the second degree and a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the court withheld adjudication and placed Riley on 18 months probation (Count II). The Department concluded that such conduct demonstrated, inter alia, a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance; fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or permit; and, a plea of nolo contendere to a felony involving moral turpitude. Section 626.611(7),(9) and (14), Florida Statutes. At hearing, Riley entered a plea of no contest to Count II of the Administrative Complaint in exchange for the Department's dismissal of Count I of the Administrative Complaint and the Department's agreement that the penalty imposed would be limited to a suspension of his eligibility for licensure for a period of two (2) years. While not conditioning his agreement to a two year suspension, Riley did request that the Department consider crediting the time he has been on probation against the two year suspension. The evidence shows that Riley was arrested and charged with the subject offense in March 1985, that he entered a plea of nolo contendere, that adjudication of guilt was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for 18 months commencing September 16, 1985. As a special condition of probation, Riley was ordered not to apply for an adjuster's license during the term of his probationary period. Consistent with the terms of his probation, Riley has not renewed his adjusters' license. The Department's records reflect that Riley's license was last due for renewal, but not renewed, on April 1, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Florida law requires that persons employed to serve in instructional capacities in the public schools hold valid certificates to teach. The Respondent, Florida Department of Education, is charged by statute with the responsibility of issuing such teaching certificates, and with the concomitant responsibility to suspend or revoke teaching certificates under appropriate circumstances. Sections 231.14 - 231.28, Florida Statutes. Purporting to act under authority of this statutory framework, the Respondent has adopted Rules 6A-4.37, and 6B-2.01 through 6B-2.17, Florida Administrative Code, as its rules establishing practices to be followed in suspending or revoking teaching certificates. The Respondent's rules establish a procedure whereby a teacher charged with conduct that would justify suspension or revocation of a teaching certificate is presented with the options of taking no action, which results in informal procedures at which the appropriate penalty is the only issue; or of requesting a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the teacher is permitted to choose between a hearing conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings as provided in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, or a hearing conducted by a panel of the Professional Practices Council ("PPC" hereafter). Rule 6A-4.37(2) provides in pertinent part as follows: When the commissioner of education finds that probable cause exists, he shall direct a filing of a formal petition against the certificate holder for the revocation or suspension of a teacher's certificate, together with a form permitting waiver of a hearing officer pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, as hereinafter provided. If section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, shall be waived by both the respondent and the chairman of the professional practices council by executing and filing the waiver form with the commissioner of education within twenty (20) days from service of the petition upon the respondent, the commissioner of education shall direct the chairman of the professional practices council to prosecute the matter before a hearing panel of three members of the professional practices council each of whom has not participated in nor was an informed party in any preliminary investigation of the cause. If section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, is not waived by the parties, the matter shall be prosecuted before a hearing officer of the division of administrative hearings. The professional practices council may retain an attorney to prosecute the cause. The professional practices council may retain a different attorney to advise the hearing committee and act as a law officer for said committee. On completion of the hearing as hereinafter set forth, the hearing panel or officer, shall transmit through the commissioner of education to the state board of education a transcript of the proceedings and a report, which shall contain specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, interpretations of rules and a recommended order. The state board of education shall review the transcript of testimony and the report. The waiver form utilized is as follows: WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IN PREFERENCE TO A HEARING BEFORE A PANEL OF THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL In the matter of the revocation of the teaching certificate of and pursuant to the provisions of 120.57, Florida Statutes, I hereby waive my right to a hearing before a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. In the alternative I do hereby request that this matter be heard before a panel of professional educators from the membership of the Professional Practices Council as provided in 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education. DATE RESPONDENT The remaining paragraphs of 6A-4.37 delineate specific procedures to be followed whether the hearing is conducted by a Hearing Officer, or by a PPC panel. The rule was adopted at a May, 1977 meeting of the State Board of Education. Prior to its adoption, public hearings were conducted, and members of the public, including the Petitioner, were allowed an opportunity to comment. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee of the Florida Legislature reviewed the rule. The rules set out at Chapter 6B-2.01 through 6B-2.16, Florida Administrative Code, establish additional procedures for public hearings conducted by the PPC. These rules pertain to teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings and to other matters. They are in large part inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 6A-4.37, and with the Administrative Procedure Act (Ch. 120, Florida Statutes). The rules are no longer followed by the PPC except those provisions which relate to the appointment of a law officer to aid a PPC panel in conducting hearings. The Respondent has been in the process of revising these rules for more than one year. Rule 6B-2.17 relates to probable cause hearings to be conducted by an executive committee. The rule is somewhat vague, but it appears to relate to proceedings under Section 231.57, Florida Statutes, rather than teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. The rule does not relate to the issue of whether a final hearing will be conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, or a panel of the PPC. During 1977, three-member PPC panels conducted thirteen hearings in teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. Fourteen such hearings were conducted by Hearing Officers. During 1978, eighteen were conducted by PPC panels, and eleven by Hearing Officers. The Petitioner, Florida Education Association/United AFT-AFL-CIO, is a statewide organization composed of persons involved in the field of education. The members are primarily teachers. The Petitioner is a confederation of local affiliates. Its local affiliates serve as collective bargaining representatives for teachers in approximately half of the local school districts in Florida. Among the Petitioner's functions are to protect its members, and members of the teaching profession with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment as teachers. The Petitioner provides services which local affiliates are largely unable to perform, including legal assistance and lobbying assistance. In many instances the Petitioner provides legal counsel to its members in connection with teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. At the Petitioner's October, 1978 convention, its members authorized Petitioner's executive council to examine the status of the PPC, and to take steps to clarify the role of the PPC. The instant rule challenge was authorized by the executive council in accordance with that mandate of the membership. There are approximately 90,000 teachers in Florida. The Petitioner represents approximately 30,000 of them.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: provides maximum penalties for major violations, but fails to designate, or define minor infractions, or provide sufficient guidelines to guide the agency in exercise of its discretion to designate minor infractions as opposed to major infraction listed by the rule. More particularly, the rule provides in part that "any portion of either penalty may be applied." Applying either penalty listed in this rule, which provides for loss of gaintime or disciplinary confinement, is definitionally a major violation. . . . The Petition and the Amended Petition do not included any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motion, the following allegations contained in the petitions are accepted as true: Albert Figueroa is an approved visitor for an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Albert Figueroa regularly visits an inmate under the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Jaylin Figueroa has a brother in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Jaylin Figueroa regularly visits with this brother. Martin Glick is on the Florida Department of Corrections approved visitor list for an inmate in its custody. Imposition of visitation restrictions upon an inmate, including indefinite suspension of these privileges, would affect the Petitioners’ visitation of that inmate.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Review was filed on August 22, 1991. The Petition was signed by Donald Eugene Halpin and Jeffery Lynn Fowler. The Petition, which was purportedly also filed by Richard Edward Jackson, was not signed by Mr. Jackson. In the Petition Mr. Halpin and Mr. Fowler challenged Rule 33-3.04(9), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: . . . The return address of all outgoing mail must contain the inmate's committed name, identification number and institutional address. The institutional name in the return address must be spelled out completely with no abbreviations. It was alleged in the Petition that the Challenged Rule is "arbitrary or capricious in its application." The Petition also contained an allegation that the Challenged Rule provides "no legitimate or compelling purpose when weighed against its adverse effect on Petitioners and their family and friends." Throughout the Petition it was alleged that there are "less restrictive forms the Respondent could employ to accomplish [its] goal . . . ." In this regard, the Petition contains the following allegation: 11. Petitioners have no qualms with the Respondent informing those individuals they write that they are state correctional inmates. However, Petitioners do object to the manner in which Respondent implements this restrictive measure. There is a much less restrictive means to accomplish the same objective, i.e., letting individuals know they are receiving letters from state correctional inmates. As the rule stands now, it is arbitrary or capricious as applied to the Petitioners. No facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. Finally, the following relief was requested and the following statement was made in closing: WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully move the Division of Administrative Hearings to declare Chapter 33-3.04 to be arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioners reserve the right to proffer First and Fourteenth Amendment violations during any administrative hearings [sic] or motions for rehearing for appellate purposes. On November 1, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. On December 2, 1991, a pleading titled "Amended Petition for Administrative Review" was filed by Mr. Halpin and Blanche Moseley with the case number of this case identified as the case that the pleading was being filed in. Through the Amended Petition Mr. Halpin and Ms. Moseley attempted to initiate the following challenge: Petitioners, Donald E. Halpin and Blanche Moseley, file their Amended Petition for Administrative Review, pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code . . . . . . . . 4. Petitioners file this action pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 (Halpin being a State Prisoner must utilize Section 120.56) and 120.57 (Ms. Moseley being a free citizen will utilize Section 120.57), Florida Statutes. Petitioners will allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., is vague, vest unbridled discretion in the agency, and is arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioner Moseley would allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., violates the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to the United States Constitution. It is further alleged under the "Conclusion" section of the Amended Petition that Ms. Moseley's challenge is based upon Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, although no proposed rule or rule amendment has been challenged in the Petition or Amended Petition. In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule is vague, it is alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule "does not set forth why the public must be protected, e.g., the types of crimes committed by inmates, the number of inmates who violated U.S. Mail regulations, and how other crimes were committed by inmates through U.S. Mail." In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent, it has been alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule is only intended as punishment--by informing those who come in conduct with an inmate's mail that the mail is from someone who is in prison. Several allegations are also included in the Amended Petition concerning how Ms. Moseley's constitutional rights are being violated by the Challenged Rule. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Sections 120.54 or 120.56, Florida Statutes. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fowler did not file an amended petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at the Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. In accordance with plea arrangements, Petitioner was convicted of numerous charges of robbery, burglary, sexual battery, and false imprisonment in Circuit Courts in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. He received numerous and various prison sentences, all of which were to run concurrently with a 99- year sentence. Assuming that Petitioner is eligible for statutory gain time for good behavior, his sentence would expire sometime prior to the year 2080. During July, 1981, Petitioner was interviewed by an examiner of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission for the purpose of establishing a presumptive parole release date (PPRD). Under Parole and Probation Commission rules then in effect, the examiner was to consider the severity of the offense committed by the Petitioner, calculate a "salient factor score" and apply various aggravating or mitigating circumstances in determining a recommended PPRD. The examiner classified the offense as "greatest (most serious III);" determined a salient factor score of nine based upon prior convictions, total time served, the existence of burglary as a present offense of conviction, the number of prior incarcerations, and the Petitioner's age of first commitment; and applied numerous aggravating circumstances based upon the nature of various of the charges that had been lodged against Petitioner. The examiner recommended a PPRD of March 4, 2092. On August 26, 1981, the Parole and Probation Commission considered the examiner's recommendation and affirmed it. Petitioner is now pursuing a review of the PPRD before the Commission. In promulgating the rules which were in effect when Petitioner'S PPRD was determined, the Parole and Probation Commission sought to isolate factors that would predict the probability of a successful parole outcome. There is no perfect predictive device on a case-by-case basis. An inmate's past behavior and statistical relationships that can be isolated provide the best predictive devices. The Commission's C utilization of a system which first classifies the offense characteristics, then applies a salient factor score and aggravating or mitigating circumstances is designed to set a presumptive parole release date based on an inmate's past behavior and based upon the statistical relationships that have been found to exist. The evidence does not establish that the guidelines adopted by the Commission in its rules which were applied to the Petitioner are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Parole and Probation Commission has amended the rules which were followed in the setting of the Petitioner's PPRD. The Petitioner continues to be affected, however, by the rules as they existed prior to the amendments because those rules provide the basis for his PPRD.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Donald Eugene Halpin, Richard Edward Jackson and Jeffery Lynn Fowler, are inmates under the supervision of the Respondent. Petitioners Halpin and Fowler are incarcerated at Glades Correctional Institution. Petitioner Jackson is incarcerated at Martin Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioners have challenged Rules 33-6.003, 33-6.0045 and 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rules govern transfers of inmates and custody classification of inmates. The Challenged Rules were amended by the Respondent after the Respondent enacted and applied several emergency rules governing inmate transfers and custody classification of inmates. These emergency rules were adopted during 1990 and 1991. The Petitioners have alleged that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious as applied to the Petitioners . . . ." The Petitioners have also alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because they were amended "through prohibited acts as defined in Chapter 120.54(9)(c), Fla. Stat., when the Respondent ran two emergency rules (33ER91-1 & 33ER91-2) back-to- back so that Amended Chapter 33-6, etc. (1991) could be implemented."
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 18, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. 3. In the Petition Rules "33-3.002, 33-19.006, 33-19 et. seq., 33-19.012, 33-23 et. seq." were challenged. Most of the Challenged Rules are lengthy and deal with a number of subjects. The common thread of the Challenged Rules concern medical care of inmates. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioner's frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 17, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 17. That the (Petitioner) has learned that the (Respondent) act [sic] pursuant to an invalid delegation as 33-3.002 33-19 et. seq., 233-23 et. seq. that fail to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency or employees that's inconsistant [sic] to the statutory requirements of 120.54 and 944.09. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalese", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of employees of the Respondent in allegedly releasing confidential medical information to "security staff and psychologist or and other staff or employees with criminal intent" and other medical practices of the employees of the Respondent. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rules. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rules are unconstitutional. Again, most of the Petitioner's arguments apparently concern violation of constitutional rights by the acts of employees of the Respondent as opposed to the violations of constitutional rights in the Challenged Rules. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rules are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 10, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. The Petitioner was informed that his Petition was being dismissed and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to file an amended petition. No amended petition has been filed by the Petitioner. On January 14, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders.
