The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's private investigator licenses should be revoked based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail contained in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein mailed October 11, 1985. Preliminary Statement The Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, issued an Administrative Complaint to assess an Administrative fine against Respondent Arthur Letourneau, on November 9, 1984. The complaint was amended on March 5, 1985. A second amended complaint was issued on October 11, 1985 seeking revocation of Respondent's license. That complaint is the charging document which is the focus of this hearing. That document alleges as follows: Count I: The Respondent operated a private investigative agency for hire utilizing unlicensed investigators and process servers prior to becoming licensed as a Class "A" agency in violation of Sections 493.319(1)(g) and 493.304(1), Florida Statutes. Count II: The Respondent performed the services of a Private Investigator for hire without a Class "C" license in violation of Section 493.319(1)(g); Count III: Respondent has incurred and has failed to satisfy two judgments for outstanding fees for private investigations which constitute misconduct under Section 493.319(1)(f). The investigations were performed by David Tracy and Anthony Luizzi and judgments and fees are outstanding in the amount of $5,314.44 (Tracy) and $1,731.00 (Luizzi). At the hearing, Respondent's Counsel filed an ore tenus Motion for Continuance of the hearing based on a claimed lack of timely notice to prepare for the hearing. Respondent's Motion was tentatively denied. 1/ Additionally, Respondent's Counsel challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleging, inter alia that the referenced statute violated Respondent's due process in that the statute was overbroad, ambiguous and may involve the prohibition of innocuous activities. Counsel also alleged that the statutes as enacted violated Respondent's First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. Finally, Respondent's counsel averred that conduct proscribed by Section 493.301, F.S. involved conduct which although improper to be engaged in by an unlicensed investigator, is the type conduct considered permissible by attorneys utilizing the services of investigators. The undersigned lacks authority to render determinations of the alleged unconstitutionality of statutes and therefore denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material, the Petitioner, Division of Licensing is the state agency having authority and jurisdiction to license and regulate private investigators and private investigative agencies pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Arthur Leteurneau, applied for a Class "C" private investigator's license and a Class "A" private investigative agency's license on April 9, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The applied for licenses were issued to Respondent on September 21, 1984. Respondent holds Class "A" private investigative agency's license No. GA8400007 and Class "C" private investigation's license No. GC0400013, both effective September 21, 1984. Prior to his licensure in Florida, Respondent worked (in Florida) for various attorneys and law offices in Dade and Broward counties. (TR 211-225; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent performed a variety of services for said attorneys including the photographing of accident scenes, taking sworn witness statements, locating the whereabouts of witnesses and other persons and service of legal process. Additionally, while working for attorney Richard Auerbach, Respondent recruited two other individuals, Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy to assist him in the performance of investigative work. David Tracy worked with Respondent from January thru September, 1983. (TR 91-95). Respondent gave Tracy specific work assignments such as the taking of witness statements, photographing accident scenes and completing client's interview sheets. At the time Tracy performed the services, he was not licensed as a investigator or as an intern. Tracy worked without a surety bond or insurance. A dispute arose between Respondent and Tracy concerning the payment of fees for Tracy's services. Tracy filed a claim against Respondent in Circuit Court, Broward County, regarding the payment for services and on September 18, 1984, a judgment was entered in his behalf in the amount of $5,314.44 for services rendered. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, TR 100-103). That judgment was outstanding at the time of this hearing. (TR 107). Anthony Liuzzi began working with Respondent in July, 1883 and continued through September, 1983. At the time Liuzzi was a licensed investigator intern and was working under the sponsorship and insurance of the Intercounty Investigative Agency. (TR 133). Liuzzi, like Tracy, also assisted Respondent in completing work assignments including taking pictures of accident scenes, researching property ownership, interviewing clients and taking witness statements relating to personal injury claims. Like Tracy, Liuzzi also had a dispute with Respondent over fees for his services and filed a claim in Circuit Court for unpaid wages in the amount $1,731.00. Liuzzi received a judgment against Respondent in the amount climbed which was unsatisfied at the time of the hearing herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR 138- 139). Prior to his licensure, Respondent spoke to several employees employed by Petitioner concerning the requirements for and his need to obtain an investigator's license in circumstances similar to the arrangements he had with the several lawyers for whom he performed investigative work. Excluding employee Pam Pingree, Respondent was advised (by Petitioner's staff) that he was not required to be licensed by Petitioner. Ms. Pingree advised Respondent that although it was not required that he be licensed, inasmuch as he was eligible for licensure and to remove any cloud concerning the need for him to be licensed, he should apply for and obtain a license. Respondent first spoke to Petitioner's employee Seymour Klosky on August 20, 1980. During the meeting with Klosky, Respondent also net with John Bianco, an investigator employed by Petitioner. Respondent later met with Harvey Matthews, also an employee of Petitioner, who related that what he was doing was permissible based on Respondent's detailed description of the manner in which he conducted assignments for the various attorneys. Respondent met with Matthews on October 8, 1983 and on February 9, 1984. TR 207-208. During the February 9, 1984 meeting with Matthews, Respondent requested a meeting with Pam Pingree who advised him of Petitioner's policy with respect to the need for licensure to engage in the type work that he was performing for attorneys. Ms. Pingree related that it "wasn't the policy of the Department to prosecute people if they have the qualification [Respondent] had, why don't he [Respondent] get a license." (TR 208). Respondent agreed to, and in fact applied for licenses, as indicated, on April 9, 1984. Respondent's application for licensure was investigated by Petitioner's employee Richard Chauncy. Respondent was investigated by investigator Chauncy on April 10, 1984. During the investigation, Respondent offered his experiences with law firms in Dade and Broward Counties as examples of the investigative experience he had. Additionally, Respondent listed his experience as a Deputy Sheriff with the Cook County Sheriff's office in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's office from December 1970 thru July, 1979 as a Deputy Sheriff. Respondent also served as a private investigator in Chicago from the period June, 1970 to October, 1981 as a self employed private investigator on a part time basis. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that Respondent conducted private investigative work for various law firms in the Miami area during a period in which he was not licensed as a private investigator or licensed to conduct a private investigative agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Additionally, Petitioner was aware that Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy had filed complaints against Respondent based on the dispute for unpaid wages which is the subject of the amended administrative complaint filed herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Page 3, Section v.) Additionally, Liuzzi had filed with Respondent at least three complaint letters which were the subject of investigation by Petitioner, prior to the time Respondent filed his application for licensure. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). The judgments, which are the subject of the amended administrative complaint, were entered shortly (three days) prior to Respondent's licensure. The operative facts forming the basis for the issuance of the judgments involve the disputed wage claims of Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy. Respondent was qualified to hold a private investigative and private investigator's agency license based on the experience requirements set forth in Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's policy is to "take disciplinary action against an applicant who performs investigative services without a license, generally in the form of an administrative fine, and at the same time grant an otherwise qualified person a license." (TR 26-28, Testimony of Petitioner's Division Director, Shelley Bradshaw). All of the work performed by Respondent, which is the basis of the complaint filed herein, was work performed prior to Respondent's licensure either as a private investigator or a private investigative agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact On April 18, 1990, Hershell Lee Johnston filed an application with the Department of State, Division of Licensing, for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator and as a class "E" Repossessor. On July 11, 1990, Respondent, through Marilyn D. Thompson, denied the application based on the provisions of Section 493.319, Florida Statutes. The denial was based on Mr. Johnston's failure to list on his application certain aliases that he had allegedly used and on his failure to reflect that he had been charged and convicted of the crime of theft by taking in the State of Georgia in 1984. No appearance was made at the formal hearing by Mr. Johnston or by anyone on his behalf, and no evidence in support of his application was presented at the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which denies the subject application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1991. Copies furnished: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Hershell Lee Johnston Post Office Box 061479 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the licensing of private investigators in Florida. On or about February 26, 1992, Petitioner herein, Lyman S. Bradford submitted to the Division an application for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license. On the same day, he also submitted an application for a Class "C" Private Investigator's license. In Section 12(a) of the former application and Section 7(a) of the latter, Petitioner indicated he had been convicted of attempted possession of cocaine, a misdemeanor, in 1988. He further indicated probation had been completed. On the basis of her analysis of Petitioner's applications, on March 12, 1992, Joni Rozur, the Division's reporting representative, recommended both applications be approved based on Petitioner's previous licensure as a Class "C" licensee, and noted that his experience met or exceeded the statutory requirements. She also noted, however, that approval was pending receipt of a criminal history report. When that record was received by the Division, it reflected that Petitioner had been arrested in September, 1988 for failure to appear for trial on the attempted possession charge and when brought before the court on October 20, 1988, pleaded not guilty. In November, 1988, however, Petitioner changed his plea of not guilty to nolo contendere and as a result, adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for 6 months with 15 hours community service, and ordered to pay costs. On January 5, 1989, Mr. Bradford failed to meet with his probation officer as ordered and he was brought before the court on February 15, 1989 for a preliminary hearing on a charge of violation of probation. Bond was set at $2,000.00. When he appeared in court on April 12, 1989 on the violation of probation charge, Petitioner pleaded not guilty and hearing was set for May 10, 1989. On that date, Petitioner did not appear and after several other hearings, on June 2, 1989, the judge released Petitioner from his bond on his own recognizance. At a hearing on the violation of probation charge held on August 2, 1989, Petitioner was found guilty and his prior probation was revoked. By way of sentence, he was placed on an additional 6 months probation with conditions. Court action, mostly involving Petitioner's motions for continuance, was periodic for a while, but after a motion to set aside his prior plea to the charge was denied, on December 27, 1990 Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to and was found guilty of violation of probation. He was placed on a new period of probation for 1 year with 300 hours of community service; ordered to undergo drug evaluation and treatment as necessary; ordered to be subjected to random urine testing; and ordered to serve 1 year in jail (suspended). His prior probation was revoked. The criminal information relative to Petitioner which Ms. Rozur relied on to change her recommendation to denial also included Petitioner's arrest on September 14, 1989 on a charge of trafficking in cocaine. Petitioner was tried before a jury in circuit court on that charge on August 21, 1991, and after a trial on the merits, pursuant to his plea of not guilty, was found not guilty. The evidence put before the jury during that trial consisted of the testimony of the two arresting officers who indicated they had observed the transaction and seized a substance at the scene later identified as cocaine; that of the Petitioner's co-actor in the supposed sale; and that of the confidential informant who set up the controlled buy. The evidence, as proffered through the testimony of Deputy Martinez who was present at the scene, indicated that a confidential informant had reported that a sale of cocaine, involving the Petitioner, would take place on an evening in September, 1989. After the confidential informant was given authority to set it up, the Petitioner did not appear and the officers left. Supposedly, Petitioner did appear later and when the informant called the officers again, he was told to set the buy up again another time. The second buy, at which Petitioner was allegedly the broker between the dealer and the confidential informant, took place in the parking lot of a motel in West Palm Beach on September 14, 1989. The informant was fitted with a radio transmitter for recording the conversations among the parties but it failed to work. Nonetheless, Martinez claims he saw Petitioner and his partner meet with the informant outside the motel room and the other officer purportedly overheard their conversation through the closed window. When the parties moved around to the side of the building out of sight and hearing, the two officers, accompanied by a drug detection dog, came out and arrested Petitioner and his associate. During the course of the arrest, cocaine was found both on the associate and wrapped in a pillow case in the back seat of the associate's car. Petitioner had no cocaine in his possession. On the basis of the above information relating to the Petitioner's original conviction, the subsequent violation of probation charge, and the arrest for but acquittal of a charge of trafficking in cocaine, the Division, on May 13, 1992, denied both applications by the Petitioner alleging that his criminal record, as cited, was clear and convincing evidence of a lack of good moral character. The Hearing Officer, however, over strenuous objection of counsel for Respondent, declined to consider as evidence any matters relating to the Petitioner's arrest for trafficking in cocaine on the basis that the acquittal of that offense came after a trial on the merits before a jury subsequent to a plea of not guilty. Under those circumstances, the Hearing Officer would not permit the Division to present evidence regarding the alleged commission of an offense of which the Petitioner had been found not guilty. In retrospect, however, there is some question as to whether or not that evidence should have been considered. At the hearing, Petitioner presented 4 letters from prominent attorneys in practice in southeast Florida going back to 1982 and 1987 through 1991, commenting on his excellent investigative work. In addition, Petitioner also presented 9 letters of recent date from various individuals including a detective with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, the Directress of his church's outreach ministry, the Chief of Police for Palm Beach Gardens, attorneys, a retired highway patrolman, a recovery agent, the assistant manager of the local American Cancer Society unit, and a fire battalion chief, all of whom have known the Petitioner for several years. In these letters, he is described as professional and thoroughgoing, capable, progressive, charitable, efficient, competent, trustworthy, conscientious, and possessed of good moral values and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Division of Licensing denying Petitioner's applications for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License and a Class "C" Private Investigator License at this time. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3631S The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the last sentence which is rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. - 8. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Thomas C. Gano, Esquire Lubin & Gano, P.A. Second Floor, Flagler Plaza 1217 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact On or about January 25, 1983, Petitioner, Bruce Hahn, submitted an application for licensure as a Class A Private Investigative Agency to the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Hearing. Thereafter, on April 5, 1983, he submitted an amendment to the application applying as well for a Class C Private Investigator's License. The Class A License was granted. On his application Petitioner indicated he had been arrested for disorderly conduct and assault but had not been convicted of either. Records of the Circuit/County Court for Broward County, Florida, reflect that he was arrested for armed robbery, a felony, in Pompano Beach, Florida, on or about February 15, 1981, but was tried on a lesser offense of assault, a misdemeanor. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but Petitioner was sentenced to six (6) months report probation. Based on this, Respondent, on June 17, 1983, denied Petitioner's application for a Class C License. Grounds for denial cited the time were that Petitioner has been found guilty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license was to be held, regardless of adjudication, and the commission of an assault except in self-defense or the defense of a client, both of which related to his February 14, 1981 arrest. According to Pan Pingree, Respondent considered the court ruling on the assault a determination of Petitioner's guilt of a criminal charge relating to the business of private investigation because in that job, he would have to be involved with the public. Respondent considers the statutory grounds for denial, as above, as a legislative fiat to consider crimes of violence in determining whether an applicant is fit to hold a license. Petitioner's offense was considered to be a crime of violence based on the assault which is specifically listed in the statutes. In addition, it was considered that the job of private investigation involves stress situations and the licensing agency must be satisfied licensees can be depended upon to react properly. In making the decision to deny, Respondent carefully considered the arresting officer's report, the court charge, and the form on which the court listed its action withholding adjudication of guilt, and sentence. Petitioner contends he tried to submit his explanatory information to Respondent by phone, but admits he did not do so in writing. He contends he was interviewed by two (2) investigators to whom he told his story, who indicated to him there was no problem. Notwithstanding Petitioner's phone call to a secretary at the Division of Licensing and his attorney's phone call to Ms. Pingree (which she does not recall), there is no evidence that Respondent considered anything other than the documents referred to above in making its decision to deny him the Class C License. In authorizing the Class A, Agency License, Respondent concluded that since Petitioner would have to have a manager who had a Class C License for the agency, this would insulate the owner (Petitioner) from the public, providing a degree of protection to the public. At the time of the offense on which the denial was based, Petitioner was working for the Broward County (Florida) Building and Zoning office. At the time of the hearing, he was employed as an investigator for the Broward County Coroner. According to the Affidavit of Experience submitted with his application, Petitioner had previously been licensed as a Private investigator under State license #1052-A, doing business as Hahn Investigative Services, in Hollywood, Florida, during 1975 through 1977. On the night of the offense, Petitioner, who had just undergone a divorce and was feeling sorry for himself, contends he was called to meet a friend of his at the lounge outside of which he was arrested. Unfortunately, he had too many drinks without eating and, on the way to his car to go home, he got sick to his stomach. He went behind a dumpster to vomit. While he was doing this, he heard steps behind him and, knowing he was in an unsavory area, he became concerned. When he turned around, he saw two (2) men behind him and said to them, "I don't want to get my ass kicked and I'm drunk. Leave me alone." At this point, he raised his hands. On cross examination, Petitioner admitted he was so drunk on the night in question he does not remember what time he went to the dumpster. He could not even find his car. Based on this admission, it is most likely he could not remember his words with such clarity and it is so found. The arresting officer's report shows that when he arrived at the scene he observed an individual who matched the Petitioner's description, standing in the parking lot with his hands raised consistent with Petitioner's story. However, based on the report of another individual present, and not upon his own observation, he arrested the petitioner, not as the victim, but as the perpetrator of the offense. Petitioner contends that at the time he owned an $85,000.00 home and drove a Cadillac Seville to indicate he had no reason to steal, and he categorically denies he had a weapon or tried to assault or rob anyone. Though no weapon was found on the Petitioner, he does own one which, at the time in question, was in his nightstand at home. He does not now nor did he then have a permit to carry it. He was not carrying his wallet at the time of his arrest because, he contends, during the evening, he knocked over a chair in the bar and broke it and the bartender kept his wallet as security for the damage. Petitioner claims he has no drinking problem now. He also contends, and there was no evidence to show otherwise, that he has no other arrest record nor was any disciplinary action taken against him at work because of this. At the time of his plea of Nolo Contendere, the court case had been set for hearing on three different occasions all of which had been cancelled. The suspense, he states, was eating him up because in his mind he had done nothing wrong. It is his testimony that when he explained all this to the judge, he said he understood and it was Hahn's attorney who advised him to enter that plea. Though he was sentenced in July to six (6) months probation, he did so well, he was released from probation the day before Thanksgiving--somewhat early. If he is granted his Class C License it is his intention to form a partnership to perform star escort service and do missing children work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Respondent deny Petitioner's application for a Class C Private Investigator's License. RECOMMENDED This 28th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pam Pingree, Chief Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman D. Zimmerman, Esquire 737 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Class "CC" (private investigator intern) license should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Department of State, Division of Licensing's (Department's) May 4, 1992, denial letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is 31 years of age and has resided in Palm Beach County his entire life. He is now, and has been for the last few years, self-employed as certified process server in Palm Beach County. After receiving his certification, he applied for and obtained a State of Florida license to carry a concealed firearm. Petitioner has been married to his present wife for approximately a year. He and his wife have an infant daughter and are expecting another child. This is Petitioner's second marriage. His first marriage ended in a bitter divorce. Petitioner has had several brushes with the law in the past, all of which occurred prior to the termination of his first marriage. In 1980, Petitioner was arrested for, and subsequently charged in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 80-5141CF with, carrying a concealed firearm, resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer. Pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of resisting arrest with violence and the remaining charges against him were dropped. Adjudication of guilt on the resisting arrest charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation. In 1984, while still on probation, Petitioner was arrested for, and charged in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 84-4810MM with, possession of under 20 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor. He was adjudicated guilty of this offense after entering a guilty plea to the charge and sentenced to time served. Petitioner's commission of this misdemeanor marijuana possession offense also resulted in a finding that he had violated the conditions of his probation in Case No. 80-5141CF. Based upon this finding, Petitioner's probation was extended an additional two years. In accordance with the recommendation of his probation officer, Petitioner was discharged from his probation on January 9, 1986, more than five months prior to the date it was due to expire. In 1989, Petitioner was separated, but not yet divorced, from his first wife, Theresa. Theresa was living in the home she and Petitioner had shared prior to their separation. Petitioner was living in a trailer on his parent's property. Theresa had changed the locks on the doors in an effort to prevent Petitioner from entering the marital home. She had also obtained a court order enjoining Petitioner from harassing her. In late June or early July of 1989, Petitioner and Theresa reconciled. Theresa gave Petitioner a key to the marital home and invited him to move back in and live with her again. Petitioner accepted the invitation. The couple lived together peaceably and without incident for approximately a week. On the morning of July 8, 1992, however, Petitioner and Theresa had an altercation that abruptly put an end to their reconciliation. The altercation began when, using the key Theresa had given him the week before, Petitioner opened the front door to their home and went inside. Petitioner was tired inasmuch as he had spent a sleepless night in the hospital room of his ill grandmother. He intended to go directly to his bedroom to try to get some sleep. Theresa was home, but she was not alone. She was with another man. As Petitioner walked through the doorway and into the home, Theresa confronted him. She had a firearm in her hand. The gun was pointed in Petitioner's direction and was very close to his face. Petitioner pushed the firearm aside and headed upstairs to his bedroom. Theresa followed close behind Petitioner, threatening to shoot him. In the bedroom was a jewelry box that contained a wedding ring that Petitioner had given Theresa to wear. 1/ Petitioner took the box. He then exited the bedroom, walked downstairs and went out the front door with the jewelry box still in his possession. Theresa unsuccessfully attempted to prevent Petitioner from getting into his car by pulling his hair and trying to choke him. As Petitioner drove off, Theresa shot at his car. Based upon erroneous information provided by Theresa about this incident, Petitioner was arrested for strong armed robbery, breaking and entering by forced entry, battery on a spouse and violating the terms of the injunction that Theresa had obtained against him. 2/ No formal charges, however, were filed against Petitioner as a result of the incident. The aforementioned injunction was subsequently vacated retroactive to the day before the incident. It appears that, although he may have run afoul of the law when he was younger, Petitioner has since matured and transformed himself into a responsible, honest and law-abiding citizen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner should not be denied licensure as a private investigator intern on the grounds cited in the Department's May 4, 1992, denial letter, as amended at hearing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1992.
Findings Of Fact During April or May 1988, Respondent solicited business as a private investigator from two credit unions in Hillsborough County, Florida. He approached employees of the credit unions and held himself out as a private investigator by discussing repossession services he could provide. He distributed a brochure and introductory materials describing the fees charged and services provided by Recovery, which included missing persons, child custody, investigations, escorts, surveillance, as well as repossessions. According to two former employees of Recovery, these solicitations continued through the Summer of 1988. The materials distributed to these credit unions by Respondent included a purported license number A-8700255 for Recovery issued by Petitioner on February 26, 1988. In fact, this license was a forgery, and had never been issued to Recovery. The license number shown on this forgery is that of another private investigative agency, the Boucher Agency located in Lutz, Florida. Respondent employed Janice Boucher during April and May 1988, for the specific purpose of using her license to operate Recovery. During an investigation into these matters in May 1988, Respondent gave to Petitioner's special investigator, Daniel Cabrera, a business card showing the name of Recovery with Boucher's license number. The card states that Recovery is "licensed," and includes the name of Respondent, as chairman. Finally, Respondent's business card represents that Recovery is specializing in collateral recovery. Respondent was responsible for, and ordered another employee of Recovery to prepare a forged license for Recovery using Boucher's license. Respondent was the owner of Recovery, at all times material hereto. Boucher did not authorize or participate in this forgery. In May 1988, Respondent obtained a Hillsborough County occupational license for Recovery which states it is for a "private investigative agency, Lic. A-8700255." The private investigative agency number shown on this occupational license is for the Boucher Agency, not Recovery. Neither Respondent nor Recovery have ever been licensed by Petitioner to engage in the business of a private investigative agency, and have never possessed either a "Class A" private investigative agency license, or a "Class C" private investigator license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 on Respondent, Jack Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE No. 88-4313) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4. 3-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3,5. 9-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jack Warren 1502 East Trampnell Road Plant City, Florida 33566 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The primary issue presented at the hearing in this case is whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience as an investigator. From 1973 through January, 1977, the Petitioner was employed on a full-time basis with the Dade County Department of Human Resources. Although a small portion of his work with Dade County was investigative in nature, his role was primarily as a counselor or social worker. During the same time the Petitioner worked on a part-time basis with the Minorities Contractors Association. In this capacity he did credit checks and background checks on individuals who were seeking loans from the corporation. During this same period the Petitioner worked on a part-time basis with attorneys. He worked as an investigator, observing accident scenes, taking photographs, getting statements from potential witnesses, and other general investigative work. The Petitioner has worked in these part-time capacities for more than three years. The investigative work would amount to approximately 18 months of full-time experience as an investigator. The Petitioner has been arrested approximately 7 or 8 times. The most serious arrest was in 1963 for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. This conviction was not reflected on the Petitioner's application. It does not appear that the Petitioner's civil rights have been taken from him, and it does appear that he has not been arrested for a period of in excess of five years. It appears that, except for his lack of experience, the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a private investigative agency.
Findings Of Fact During the period January 26, 1994, to September 28, 1994, in Broward County, Florida, Respondent performed the services of a private investigator without a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License. 1/ Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of persons providing private investigative, private security, and private repossession services in Florida pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent first applied to Petitioner for licensure as a private investigator on October 4, 1994. At no time prior to that application was the Respondent licensed as a private investigator by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by American Recovery Specialist of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (American Recovery). On January 1994, American Recovery was employed by Riverside National Bank (Riverside) to locate Ms. Chaan S. Capps and her 1993 Nissan Maxima that she had financed through Riverside. Respondent performed investigative services pertaining to this account with Riverside in January and February 1994. Matthew Ross is the boyfriend of Ms. Capps. Mike Levine and Matthew Ross are friends. On January 26, 1994, Respondent called Mike Levine pertaining to this investigation. During this telephone conversation, Respondent identified himself to Mr. Levine as a detective from the Metro-Dade Police Department and asked him questions about Ms. Capps. Frances Ross is the mother of Matthew Ross. On February 9, 1994, Matthew Ross found one of the Respondent's business cards in the gate of his mother's residence. The business card contained Respondent's name, the name of his employer, and his telephone number. The card also contained the handwritten notation "call ASAP." Mr. Ross called from his mother's house the telephone number listed on the business card and he spoke with the Respondent. Respondent told Mr. Ross during this telephone conversation on February 9, 1995, that he was an investigator with the Metro-Dade Police investigating the Chaan Capps case. The conversation between Respondent and Mr. Ross terminated when Mr. Ross became upset, handed the telephone to his mother, and walked out of the house. Respondent thereafter told Frances Ross that Ms. Capps was wanted by Metro-Dade Police and that he was investigating the case for Metro-Dade Police.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and imposes administrative fines against the Respondent as follows: An administrative fine in the amount of $100 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A00-01205, and a Class "C" Private Investigator Licence, Number C00-01229. Respondent has been licensed as a private investigator since 1962. During that time, there has been no disciplinary action against his licenses. On or about May 26, 1994, Leslie Dillingham hired Respondent to obtain proof of her husband's homosexuality for use in a divorce and custody proceeding. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she requested that Respondent conduct a surveillance of her husband, Mr. Dillingham, and his alleged boyfriend. She also requested that Respondent send someone who could pass as being gay to attend a meeting of an alleged support organization for homosexual men at a branch of the public library on May 28, 1994. Ms. Dillingham wanted to find out the names and addresses of the gay men who were members of the support group. Respondent represented to Ms. Dillingham that he would conduct the surveillance and that he had employees that could assist him in performing these services. He told Ms. Dillingham that he had an employee who could pass as being gay and infiltrate the organization of gay men. However, that employee was out of town. Respondent said he would contact this employee and have him attend the meeting at the library. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she expressly informed Respondent of the time constraints involved in the investigation. She needed all available information before June 7, 1994, which was the trial date for her divorce and child custody proceeding. Ms. Dillingham specifically requested an oral daily report, an itemized statement of the work done, and a written report of the outcome of Respondent's investigation. Respondent was to make his daily reports by telephone to Ms. Dillingham's home or office. Ms. Dillingham gave Respondent some pictures of her husband and his alleged boyfriend along with the tag numbers for their automobiles. She also gave Respondent a retainer in the amount of $1,500. She agreed to pay Respondent and/or his employees $40 per hour. Respondent immediately began his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's residence on May 26, 1994. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked alone and did not engage any employee or other investigator to assist him with the investigation. On May 27, 1994, Respondent continued his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's apartment and made spot checks at the home of the alleged boyfriend who lived in a different part of town. The surveillance revealed no contact between the two subjects. Respondent did not attempt to make his daily report to Ms. Dillingham. On May 28, 1994, Respondent conducted surveillance of the subjects' residences, first one and then the other, until 4:00 p.m. At that time, Respondent went to the library branch where the support group was scheduled to meet. He had been unable to arrange for his employee to infiltrate the meeting. Instead, Respondent sat outside the door of the meeting where he could hear the group planning a Memorial Day picnic. He was able to record the tag numbers of some of the men attending the meeting. Neither of the subjects attended the support group meeting. After the meeting, Respondent resumed his surveillance at the residences of Mr. Dillingham and the alleged boyfriend. They did not have any contact with each other. Again, Respondent did not attempt to contact his client to make his daily report. The next day was Sunday, May 29, 1994. Once again Respondent's surveillance of the subjects' residences was not fruitful. Respondent contacted his client, Ms. Dillingham, who directed him not to begin surveillance of the husband until after noon the next day. Ms. Dillingham did not want Respondent to conduct surveillance on the morning of May 30, 1994, because her husband would have visitation with their son during that time. Monday, May 30, 1994, was Memorial Day. Respondent's surveillance from 1:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. did not reveal any contact between the subjects. However, Respondent made his daily report to his client. Ms. Dillingham informed Respondent that she was attempting to serve her husband's male friends with subpoenas for deposition. She told Respondent that once "the cat was out of the bag," continued surveillance probably would not be useful. On May 31, 1994, Respondent was unable to locate the vehicle of the client's husband at home or at work. Spot checks throughout the day revealed no activity between the subjects. When Respondent made his daily report, Ms. Dillingham told him that depositions of her husband's friends would take place on June 2, 1994, and mediation on June 3, 1994. After this conversation, Respondent understood that the surveillance part of the investigation was complete. Ms. Dillingham's husband had visitation with their son on Wednesday evening, June 2, 1994, and on the weekend from Friday, June 3, 1994, through Sunday, June 5, 1994. Ms. Dillingham did not want surveillance conducted during visitation periods. Ms. Dillingham and her sister, Karlene Goller, tried to reach Respondent by phone several times everyday from June 1, 1994, through June 4, 1994. They were not successful. On Sunday, June 5, 1994, Respondent returned one of Ms. Dillingham's calls and agreed to meet her at her office. During the meeting, Respondent returned the photographs of Ms. Dillingham's husband and his alleged boyfriend. He also gave her the tag numbers of some of the men who attended the support group meeting at the public library. Ms. Dillingham was dissatisfied with the results of Respondent's investigation because it had not produced any evidence of her husband's homosexuality. Respondent informed Ms. Dillingham that he had worked for 60 hours on the case. Ms. Dillingham was so upset that Respondent agreed to continue the investigation without charging her for his time in excess of the $1,500 retainer. Respondent said he would visit some gay bars to determine whether anyone knew Mr. Dillingham. Respondent told Ms. Dillingham that he might have to pay someone at the gay bars to contact him if they saw Mr. Dillingham at a bar. On Monday, June 6, 1994, Respondent went to some gay bars. At a bar known as the Metro, Respondent made contact with a bartender/security man, Bruce Long, who knew most of the gay men in town. However, Mr. Long did not know Mr. Dillingham by name and verbal description. Respondent gave $50 dollars to Mr. Long and promised to furnish him with a photograph of Mr. Dillingham. In exchange for the money, Mr. Long agreed to call Respondent if he saw Mr. Dillingham. Around 11:00 p.m. on June 6, 1994, Respondent met with Ms. Dillingham and her sister at a Waffle House on Roosevelt Boulevard. She gave a photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Respondent to show to Mr. Long at the Metro. Later that night, Respondent returned to the Metro. He gave the photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Mr. Long who agreed to show it around to friends and bartenders at other gay clubs. June 7, 1994, was the date of the final hearing in Ms. Dillingham's divorce and custody proceeding. After checking with Mr. Long to find out if any of his gay friends knew Mr. Dillingham, Respondent beeped Ms. Dillingham indicating that he had no new information. Ms. Dillingham never saw Respondent's investigative report marked as Petitioner's Exhibit One (1) until an investigator from Petitioner's office showed it to her. She never received an itemized statement or bill indicating how Respondent spent her retainer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 and placing the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1996. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 except for last sentence in 3(a) of the Proposed Facts which is rejected. No persuasive evidence that Respondent and his client discussed the need to make inquiries at gay bars during the initial meeting. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10 and 16-17. Accept in Findings of Fact 17 that Respondent agreed to visit some gay bars but reject that Respondent offered to buy testimony. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry H. Wells Attorney at Law 8015 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark P. Stanish, during times material held a Class "C" private investigator license issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. During the period January, 1993 through April, 1993, Respondent advertised in local newspapers in and around Pasco County for "private investigators wanted". At least nine individuals responded to the advertisement placed by Respondent and appeared at meetings and seminars in Pasco County and were told by Respondent that, for a fee, his agency would train and license them and refer investigative cases to them subject to an independent contractor's agreement. At least three individuals paid Respondent $2,000 for training and the promise of being set up in a branch office with enough investigative work to earn $40,000 annually. After paying Respondent $3,000, Michael Straniere was given office space in Spring Hill, Florida and told to recruit as many investigators as possible. Straniere never received any investigative cases from Respondent or as a result of advertising in the local newspaper. Straniere received no training other than the sales pitch by Respondent to recruit as many investigators as possible, and that was the manner in which he could earn the salary that he was promised ($40,000 per annum). Ted Nizza was also made a similar solicitation by Respondent; however upon reflection, Nizza declined the solicitation when Respondent became defensive when Nizza suggested that it sounded like a pyramid scheme. Nizza, a former law enforcement officer in New York, did some background checks on Respondent's operations and learned that Respondent had no investigative work available, and that the manner in which monies would be earned, in the main, consisted of bringing in recruits and receiving a fee for each recruit selected, which recruits would pay a substantial fee ($1,000 or more) to be trained and licensed. In soliciting recruits, Respondent sought $1,995 for training or $3,000 for a management position. Respondent had no contracts for private investigative work during times material. At least four individuals gave Respondent down payments and deposits toward training, licensing and sponsorship for private investigative intern licenses. These deposits were in varying amounts from upwards of $200 to $1,000. Although seven recruits paid Respondent a fee to receive training to become licensed, only Straniere's license application was submitted to Petitioner for processing. In soliciting branch managers, Respondent told Nizza that the over- recruitment of private investigators and interns would not be problematic as there was a high turnover in the private investigation industry. During times material, neither Michael Straniere, Ted Steven Triola, Harry H. Orta, Robby L. Keen, Dorcas L. Stafford, Curtis J. Huff, or Joel Smith received any private investigative work from Respondent or through advertisements nor were they refunded any of the monies paid to Respondent. (proffered testimony) /2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's Class "C" private investigator license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of May, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1994.
