Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on September 18, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition Rule 33-3.018, Florida Administrative Code, and Policy and Procedural Directive No. 2.02.15 were challenged. The Challenged Rule is titled "Inmate Bank Trust Fund". The Challenged Rule is lengthy and provides for the "policies of the Department with respect to money received for the personal use or benefit of inmates . . . ." The Directive deals with the same general subject. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioners frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 4, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 4. That the (Petitioner) seek to challenge D.O.C. Policy and Procedure Directive $2.02.15 entitled (Administration on Inmate Trust Funds) as being invalid, arbitrary, capricious, that goes beyond the powers, functions, duties, to exceed legislative authority. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalize", 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 three employees of the Respondent, J. L. Ward (see paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition), R. E. Davis (see paragraphs 14 and 23 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition), and B. E. Goss (see paragraph 24 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition). See also paragraphs 13-14 and 18 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rule and the Directive. See paragraphs 17, 22 and 25 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition and most of the portion of the Petition labeled "Affect the Petitioner [sic] Interest." The statements concerning constitutional issues consists of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rule or the Directive are unconstitutional. Finally, the following relief was requested in the Petition: The Petitioner demand [sic] relief of: That D.O.C. #2.02.15 et. seq. be declared invalid, arbitrary, capricious, to delegate outside the scope of Florida Statute and Constitution. Any and all other applicable authority that's statutory protected or judicial mandate under Federal mandate as [unreadable] v. Wainwright, TCA-75-3 (11/18/77). Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F. 2d 118 (2nd Cir. 1978) (Cite omitted). That the Respondents, be required to incorporate State Constitution and Federal Constitution protection as statutory mandated at 944.09 120.54 et. seq. (1991). Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule and the Directive are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On November 1, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On November 21, 1991, a pleading titled "Amended Petition as Ordered November 1st 1991" was filed by the Petitioner. The First Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, it is more apparent in the First Amended Petition that the Petitioner is challenging alleged actions of certain employees of the Respondent and not the Challenged Rule or the Directive. The First Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the First Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule and the Directive are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On December 9, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition was entered dismissing the First Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders. On December 13, 1991, the Petitioner filed a document titled "Amended Petition". This Second Amended Petition does nothing to correct the deficiencies of the Petition or the First Amended Petition.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15A-9.006(2) (the Rule) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to section 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact An IID is: A breath alcohol analyzer connected to a motor vehicle's ignition. In order to start the motor vehicle engine, a convicted person must blow a deep lung breath sample into the analyzer, which measures the breath alcohol concentration. If the breath alcohol concentration exceeds the fail point on the [IID], the motor vehicle engine will not start. Fla. Admin. Code R. 15A-9.003(13). Rule 15A-9.005, which is entitled, "Specifications," provides in part: All [IIDs] will be required to meet or exceed the standards set forth in the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772- 11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical specifications for the operation and installation of the [IID] shall be described in the contract between [Respondent] and the manufacturer(s). The [IIDs] alcohol fail point shall be the level specified by Section 316.1937, Florida Statutes. Rule 15A-9.005(4), (5), and (6) establishes performance specifications for failed-point tests on initial startup and rolling retests and for an emergency bypass. Rule 15A-9.007, which is entitled, "Certification," provides: Each manufacturer under contract with [Respondent] will submit certification from an independent laboratory certifying that their [IID] has been tested in accordance with the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772-11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the [IID] meets or exceeds those specifications, as well as criteria set forth in the contract with [Respondent]. The manufacturer shall be responsible for the continuing certification of [IID] service providers for use of an approved [IID]. Rule 15A-9.003(6) defines "certification" as the "testing and approval process required by [Respondent]." Rule 15A-9.003(16) defines "manufacturer" as the "actual producer of the [IID] who assembles the product and who may provide distribution and services." Rule 15A-9.003(21) defines "service provider" as the "retail supplier of the approved [IID]." Rule 15A-9.008 addresses the installation and removal of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.008(1) requires the "manufacturer or his [sic] representative" to install the IID in accordance with the guidelines of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Rule 15A-19.008(2) requires the "service provider" to develop and deliver an IID orientation to the convicted person. Rule 15A-9.009 addresses the servicing of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.009(2) requires the "service provider" to service the IID at the intervals stated in the contract with Respondent, calibrate the IID, retrieve data from the IID and timely submit the data to Respondent, and check for signs of tampering with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(5) requires an IID to record the time and date of each breath test, the breath alcohol level of each test, and the time and date of any attempt to tamper with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(6) requires the "manufacturer or service provider" to maintain a toll-free 24-hour emergency telephone support service and fix or replace any nonoperational IID within 48 hours of any call. Rule 15A-9.006, which is entitled, "Procedure for [IID] Approval," provides: All ignition interlock devices used pursuant to Sections 316.193 and 316.1937, Florida Statutes, must be approved by the department. The department shall contract with a manufacturer or manufacturers of ignition interlock devices for the services and commodities required for implementation of Sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes. The department shall maintain a list of approved ignition interlock devices. For the specific authority and laws implemented, Rule 15A-9.006 cites the same authority: sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes, and Federal Register Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772-11787. Section 316.193 imposes penalties for DUI offenses. For second and third DUIs, convicted persons must have installed "an [IID] approved by [Respondent] in accordance with s. 316.1938." Section 316.1937 authorizes a court to order the installation of an IID under circumstances other than those described in section 316.193. Section 316.1937 provides that the court may prohibit the convicted person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a "functioning [IID] certified by [Respondent] as provided in s. 316.1938 " The most relevant statute to this case is section 316.1938, which provides: [Respondent] shall certify or cause to be certified the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of the [IIDs] as required by s. 316.1937, and shall publish a list of approved devices, together with rules governing the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of such devices as adopted by rule in compliance with s. 316.1937. The cost of certification shall be borne by the manufacturers of [IIDs]. No model of [IID] shall be certified unless it meets the accuracy requirements specified by rule of [Respondent]. [Respondent] shall design and adopt by rule a warning label which shall be affixed to each [IID] upon installation. The label shall contain a warning that any person tampering, circumventing, or otherwise misusing the device is guilty of a violation of law and may be subject to civil liability. The document at Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772, et seq., is a notice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of technical specifications for IIDs (Model Specifications). Model Specifications applies to the manufacture, testing, calibration, data-reporting, and tamper-monitoring of IIDs. IIDs are manufactured by 16 corporations in the United States. Most, if not all, states operate IID programs for DUI offenders. Petitioner is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs. Its sole manufacturing facility is in Cocoa, Florida, where Petitioner employs 30-35 persons. About 35,000 of Petitioner's IIDs are in use in 25 states, but not Florida. Intervenors, which are affiliated corporations, are manufacturers and service providers of IIDs. (References to Intervenors will include either Intervenor, as appropriate.) Pursuant to the contract described below, Intervenors have provided IID services to over 6000 convicted persons in Florida. Intervenor is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs and presently operates in 46 states. Respondent has tentatively selected Intervenor as the sole vendor for the state of Florida in the 2013-14 procurement described below. In 2003, Respondent issued an invitation to negotiate for IIDs and IID services. Following a tentative award to Intervenors, a vendor challenged the award, arguing, at least in part, that Respondent lacked the authority to limit the number of IID service providers. In a settlement, Respondent awarded the south region of Florida to Intervenors and the north region of Florida to the bid protestor, which was #1 A Lifesafer, Inc. (Lifesafer). In 2004, Respondent entered into contracts for IIDs and IID services with these vendors. As extended, the 2004 contracts are set to expire on March 31, 2014. Respondent issued a Request for Proposals on July 3, 2013 (RFP). Providing for the replacement of the 2004 contracts described in the preceding paragraph, the RFP is to enable Respondent to select up to two vendors to "implement and operate an [IID] Program" in Florida. RFP Attachment C-19 provides that the term of the new contract(s) shall be five years with an "anticipated" renewal term of another five years.2/ The RFP calls for responses detailing, among other things, the IID hardware by name and model, which must comply with Model Specifications requirements; software to provide Respondent with online access to data downloads from IIDs; installation; service, inspection and monitoring; contractor staffing; training of staff; security and fraud prevention; and transition services for IID convicted persons being serviced by a party to the current IID contract. No one filed a specifications challenge to the RFP. Respondent received four responses; they were from Petitioner, Intervenors, Intervenor, and Lifesafer. Petitioner, Intervenors, and Lifesafer have challenged the tentative award to Intervenor, and these bid protests are pending at DOAH as DOAH Case Nos. 13-3924BID, 13-3925BID, and 13-4037BID. Respondent acknowledges that the procurement of IIDs and IID services by contract provides it more flexibility than if it specified requirements and performance standards by rule. Respondent concedes that other states allow IID service providers to operate IID programs with open competition. Respondent contends that procuring these IID services by statewide or regional contract ensures the delivery of services to rural areas that otherwise might be underserved, the delivery of uniform services throughout the state, the transmission from the IID service provider of compliance data that would be jeopardized if numerous IID service providers operated in the state, the existence of a process for the removal of an IID service provider that did not discharge its responsibilities in a timely and competent fashion, and the familiarity among Respondent's limited staff with the limited makes of IIDs in use in Florida.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, 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, 3-12, 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 Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
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.
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."
The Issue Whether Petitioners committed the offenses alleged and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioners Jerry J. Robinson and Charles Osz, were detention deputies employed by the Respondent, Everett S. Rice, Pinellas County Sheriff (Respondent), and assigned to the Pinellas County Jail (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioners were responsible for the care, custody, and control of persons held at the Jail. On January 30, 1998, Officer John Fitzgerald of the Largo Police Department took Duston Llano into custody and transported him to the Jail. Joseph Nichols, an Explorer Scout with the Largo Police Department, accompanied Officer Fitzgerald to the Jail. Mr. Llano was not under arrest since he had committed no crime but was taken into custody pursuant to the Marchman Act based upon his intoxicated condition. When he was taken into custody, Mr. Llano did not resist or threaten physical harm to the officers but did threaten to sue the officers. On January 30, 1998, Petitioners Robinson and Osz were assigned to the booking area of the Jail. Upon Mr. Llano's arriving at the Jail, Petitioners Robinson and Osz took possession of him in the pre-booking area. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners transported Mr. Llano to the post-booking section of the Jail and placed him in Cell 4. Mr. Llano was barely able to walk and was assisted by Petitioners Robinson and Osz to the post-booking area. Once in Cell 4, Petitioners began a pat-down search of Mr. Llano. Petitioner Robinson was to the left of Mr. Llano and Petitioner Osz was to Mr. Llano's right. During the search, a substance Petitioners believed might be crack cocaine was found on the person of Mr. Llano. After the suspicious substance was found on Mr. Llano, Detention Deputy Monte Esry requested that Detention Deputy Larry Potts summon Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols and ask them to remain at the Jail to possibly process the substance and effect an arrest of Mr. Llano. Detention Deputy Potts complied with Detention Deputy Esry's request and then accompanied Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols down the hall from the pre-booking area to Cell 4 of the post-booking area where Mr. Llano was being held. The substance found on Mr. Llano's person and believed to be contraband was found by Petitioner Osz who gave the substance to Petitioner Robinson. Petitioner Robinson then handed the substance to Detention Deputy Esry who handed it to Detention Deputy Potts who, then, handed it to Officer Fitzgerald for testing. Having found what they believed to be contraband, Petitioners Osz and Robinson began a strip search of Mr. Llano. When they arrived at Cell 4, Officer Fitzgerald stood near the doorway to the cell and Mr. Nichols remained in the hallway outside the cell. From Officer Fitzgerald's and Mr. Nichols' vantage point, it was possible for them to see into Cell 4. Both Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols observed Mr. Llano sitting on the bunk in the cell with Petitioner Robinson on his left and Petitioner Osz on his right. Mr. Llano was slumped over and again made reference to suing everyone. However, Mr. Llano took no action to resist or otherwise justify the use of force. In an apparent response to Mr. Llano's threat to sue, Petitioner Osz grabbed Mr. Llano by his hair, straightened him up and slapped him on the face or head at least twice. While Petitioner Osz was slapping Mr. Llano, he said something to the effect of "how about another thousand" or "there is another thousand." From his vantage point in the hall, not more than 15 feet away, Mr. Nichols saw Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano and heard the comments by Petitioner Osz. Officer Fitzgerald, who was at the doorway of Cell 4, approximately nine feet, also saw the slapping incident and heard the comments made by Petitioner Osz. During the course of the slapping incident, Detention Deputy Potts was also in Cell 4. Nonetheless, he testified that he did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. When Petitioner Osz slapped Mr. Llano, Petitioner Robinson was in Cell 4 and within five or six feet of Petitioner Osz and Mr. Llano. However, at the time of the incident, Petitioner Robinson was preoccupied with depositing items obtained from Mr. Llano's person into a property bag that was on a steel table in the cell and did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Also, because the Jail was very busy and loud on this evening, Petitioner Robinson did not hear Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Because Petitioner Robinson did not observe the incident, he did not respond to or report Petitioner Osz' actions toward Mr. Llano. Neither Officer Fitzgerald nor Mr. Nichols observed Petitioner Robinson during the slapping incident and could not testify as to where he was looking when the incident occurred. After the slapping incident, Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols then left the area of Cell 4 in order to conduct a test of the substance found in Mr. Llano's pants pocket. As a result of the test performed by Officer Fitzgerald, it was determined that the substance was not illegal. After conducting the presumptive test, Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols left the Jail. Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols subsequently reported the slapping incident to their supervisors and prepared reports memorializing the events they observed. A representative of the City of Largo Police Department then reported the incident to the Respondent, who initiated an investigation by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Inspections Bureau, Administrative Inquiry Division. As a part of the investigation regarding the conduct in question, sworn statements were taken from Officer Fitzgerald, Mr. Nichols, Detention Deputy Potts, Detention Deputy Esry and Petitioners Osz and Robinson. Attempts to speak with Mr. Llano were fruitless based upon his lack of recollection of the incident. During the course of his sworn statement, Petitioner Robinson stated that he did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Detention Deputy Potts, who was also in Cell 4 during the incident, also stated in his sworn statement that he did not observe Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. During his sworn statement, Petitioner Osz denied that he ever struck Mr. Llano. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division presented its entire investigative file to the Chain of Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain of Command Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by the Administrative Inquiry Division and giving Petitioners the opportunity to respond further, the complaints against Petitioners were sustained. Specifically, the violations determined to have occurred as to Petitioner Osz were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by the Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 006, relating to truthfulness; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 021, relating to custody of arrestees/prisoners; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, C (Level Three Violation), 060, relating to standard of conduct. Under the PCSO Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations and one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 115 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner Osz was assessed 115 disciplinary points. The Sheriff's Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point award of 115 points to be a minimum discipline of a 15-day suspension and a maximum discipline termination. In the instant case, the discipline imposed against Petitioner Osz was termination. Specifically, the violations determined to have occurred as to Petitioner Robinson were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by the Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 006, relating to truthfulness; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, B (Level Four violation), 037, relating to reporting violations of laws, ordinances, rules or orders. Under the PCSO Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Five violation and one Level Four violation is the basis for assigning 80 disciplinary points. As a result, in the instant case, Petitioner Robinson was assessed 80 disciplinary points. The Sheriff's Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point award of 80 points to be a minimum discipline of a 10-day suspension and a maximum discipline of termination. In the instant case, the discipline imposed against Petitioner Robinson was termination. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner Osz in slapping Mr. Llano was unnecessary, excessive, did not constitute a good correction practice and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the PCSO enter a Final Order: 1) finding Petitioner Osz guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document; (2) upholding the termination of Petitioner Osz' employment as a detention deputy with the PCSO; (3) dismissing the charges against Petitioner Robinson; and, (4) reinstating Petitioner Robinson as a detention deputy with the PCSO. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach, Esquire Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 Charles Osz, pro se 2545 Coachman Road Northeast Number 127 Clearwater, Florida 33765 Keith Tischler, Esquire Power, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 B. Norris Rickey Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 33757
The Issue Whether the undisputed facts of this case support a Final Order of Dismissal against the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration.
Findings Of Fact On or about May 3, 2004, after the commencement of the hearing in DOAH Case No. 04-0217RU, AHCA announced it intended to engage in rulemaking for the subject matter addressed by the rule challenge (the statewide rates described above). DOAH Case No. 04-0217RU went into abeyance pending the results of the agency’s rulemaking effort. The Respondent scheduled a “rule development workshop” for June 8, 2004. On or about October 8, 2004, AHCA published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly that scheduled the public hearing in the cause, proposed a rate table, and gave persons interested in participating in the matter who wished to provide information regarding the “statement of estimated regulatory costs” to file such information within 21 days. The Petitioners timely responded to the notice. The Petitioners did, in fact, submit information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs. Whether or not AHCA was “required” to respond to the information provided by Petitioners is unknown. The Respondent did not notify the Petitioners that it was not “required” to consider the information. The parties participated in a public hearing on the subject matter of the rule on November 2, 2004. The Respondent did not notify the Petitioners at the public hearing that it would not respond to the information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs. In fact, AHCA elected to review the information and did prepare a response to the Petitioners. On December 23, 2004, AHCA issued the response to the information provided by the Petitioners regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs. Whether or not the response was “adequate” under the law is not known. For purposes of this matter, it is undisputed that the Respondent tendered the response. On December 27, 2004, AHCA filed the proposed rule (designated in this record as Rule 59G-8.200) with the Secretary of State. The notice of the filing of the instant rule with the Secretary of State was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 14, 2005. The subject rule became “effective” on January 16, 2005. The Petitioners first challenged the “proposed rule” on January 11, 2005. At that time the publication of filing of the rule was not publicly available. There was no published notice prior to January 11, 2005, to indicate that the proposed rule had been filed with the Secretary of State. After the petition challenging the “proposed” rule was filed with the Division, the case was set for hearing for February 7, 2005. At that time the Respondent filed a series of motions seeking to continue the hearing, limit the Petitioners to specified issues, and to require a more definite statement. Essentially, the Respondent has maintained that the Petitioners did not timely file the proposed rule challenge and that the petition to challenge the existing rule is inadequate. The Petitioners intended to challenge the proposed rule and were unaware that the rule had been filed until January 14, 2005. The Petitioners sought to amend their petition challenging the proposed rule. At the hearing commenced on February 7, 2005, the procedural issues of the matter became more fully evident to all parties. At one point during the proceedings, the undersigned asked counsel for the Respondent when the Petitioners were afforded a point of entry to challenge the proposed rule. While the Respondent maintained the Petitioners had not adequately alleged the factual basis for their challenge, the procedural issue of whether the rule at issue was a “proposed” rule verses an “existing” rule had not been fully deciphered. The Respondent’s legal position, as noted by counsel, continued to be that the rule was an existing rule, that the Petitioners had not fleshed-out their claims sufficiently to meet a due process burden, and that the Petitioners bear the burden of proof in this case. The Petitioners entered an ore tenus motion for summary final order that was later reduced to writing and filed with the Division on February 22, 2005. The Respondent was granted leave to respond to the motion and did so. When the hearing was reconvened on March 3, 2005, both sides had fully addressed the issues of the case. Both sides were afforded additional argument on the matter.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America owns and operates some forty nursing homes and retirement centers in approximately six states. It currently has twenty-six applications pending for Certificates of Need to establish new nursing homes in Florida. In preparing each application, it has been necessary to provide HRS with information regarding the accessibility of the proposed project to low income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women, handicapped persons and other underserved groups. The Certificate of Need application also requires an applicant to project revenues and utilization on the basis of types of patients (i.e., Medicaid, Medicare, insurance, private pay, and indigent) which the applicant expects to serve. Petitioner Whitehall Boca operates a nursing home located in Boca Raton, Florida. This facility is presently licensed for 69 skilled nursing home beds, and desires to expand the number of skilled beds. The patients at Whitehall Boca are 100 percent private pay patients. This petitioner has never served and does not intend to serve Medicare or Medicaid patients or the medically indigent. Its financing is conditioned upon serving only private pay patients. The entire concept of this facility is to provide services to those persons in the upper income bracket who wish to continue an elite life-style in their later years. Petitioner Health Quest Corporation presently has several applications pending for Certificates of Need to establish and operate nursing homes in Florida. It has been the practice and policy of HRS in the past to consider the issue of geographic and economic accessibility when reviewing applications for a Certificate of Need. As noted in Paragraph 1 above, the printed instruction and application form requires information from an applicant regarding the economic accessibility of the proposal to minorities and low income groups. In documenting the financial feasibility of a proposal, the applicant is required to include a projection of income and expenses on a pro forma basis for the first two years of operation. after completion of the project. In order to project income, an applicant would have to project the percent of its total revenue to be derived from Medicaid, Medicare, and indigent patients as opposed to private pay and third-party insurance pay patients. These projections are also required in providing information to HRS regarding the projected total facility utilization. Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, lists twelve general criteria against which applications for a Certificate of Need are to be evaluated. More specific criteria for specific health services are also provided in later portions of that Rule. The first twelve subsections of Rule 10-5.11 generally track the statutory criteria set forth in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Prior to the challenged amendment, Rule 10- 5.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows "(3) The need that the population served or to be served has for such proposed health or hospice services." As a result of another rule-challenge proceeding, the District Court of Appeal, First District, invalidated Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, to the extent that it did not explicitly contain any criterion which addressed the extent to which an applicant could meet the needs of minority and low income persons. Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 430 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983). The court noted that Section 381.494(7)(a), Florida Statutes, (now Section 381.494(8)(a)) requires HRS rules to be in accordance with federal statutes, and that federal statutes and regulations require Certificate of Need agencies to consider the degree to which medically underserved persons, including low income and minorities, have access to the services under review. Comparing the federal "access" requirements with HRS's Rule 10-5.11(3) (cited in Paragraph 5 above), the Court concluded that that subsection was not broad enough to include consideration of the criteria mandated by federal regulation and allowed HRS to ignore the federally mandated "access" criterion. To that extent, the Court found Rule 10- 5.11 to be inconsistent with federal regulations and statutes, and thus invalid. In response to the Court's decision in Farmworker, supra, and in order to codify its prior policy and practice, respondent HRS seeks to amend Rule 10- 5.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, with the following language: "(3)(a) The need that the population served or to be served has for the health or hospice services proposed to be offered or changed, and the extent to which all resi- dents of the district, and in particular low income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women, handicapped persons, other underserved groups and the elderly, are likely to have access to those services. The extent to which that need will be met adequately under a proposed reduction, elimination or relocation of a service, under a proposed substantial change in admissions policies or practices, or by alternative arrangements, and the effect of the proposed change on the ability of members of medically underserved groups which have traditionally experienced difficulties in obtaining equal access to health services to obtain needed health care. The contribution of the proposed service in meeting the health needs of members of such medically underserved groups, particu- larly those needs identified in the appli- cable district plan and State health plan as deserving of priority. In determining the extent to which a proposed service will be accessible, the following will be considered: The extent to which medically underserved individuals currently use the applicant's services as a proportion of the medically underserved population in the applicant's proposed service area(s), and the extent to which medically underserved individuals are expected to use the proposed services, if approved; The performance of the applicant in meeting any applicable Federal regulations requiring uncompensated care, community ser- vice, or access by minorities and handicapped persons to programs receiving Federal financial assistance, including the existence of any civil rights access complaints against the applicant; The extent to which Medicare, Medicaid and medically indigent patients are served by the applicant; and Tile extent to which the applicant offers a range of means by which a person will have access to its services. In any case where it is determined that an approved project does not satisfy the cri- teria specified in subparagraphs (3)(a) through (d), the Department may, if it approves the application, impose the condi- tion that the applicant must take affirmative steps to meet those criteria. In evaluating the accessibility of a proposed project, the accessibility of the current facility as a whole must be taken into consideration. If the proposed project is disapproved because it fails to meet the need and access criteria specified herein, the Department will so state in its written findings. In any case where a project does not satisfy the criteria specified in sub- paragraph (3)(a) through (d) above, the Department shall so notify in writing the applicant and the appropriate Regional Office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services." In preparing this proposed rule amendment, respondent reviewed and considered the "access" rules effective in eight other States, portions of the "Model Access Provisions for State Certificate of Need Statutes or Regulations" and the federal regulations and statutes. The language contained in subparagraphs 3(a) - (d)4 of the respondent's proposed rule substantially tracks the language contained in 42 C.F.R. Section 123.412(a)(5) and (6), with changes made only for clarity or to reflect the different terminology utilized in the Florida Certificate of Need program. The language contained in subparagraphs (e) and (f) of the respondent's proposed rule is substantially identical to the language in federal regulations 42 C.F.R. Section 123.413(b) - (d) and 42 C.F.R. Section 123.410(a)(6) (1982). The federal regulations require the States to adopt, and use as applicable, specific criteria based upon the general considerations set forth in 42 C.F.R. Section 123.412 (1982). An economic impact statement was prepared by respondent for proposed Rule 10-5.11(3). The respondent concluded that, other than the normal costs to the agency of processing a rule amendment, no economic impact was expected as a result of the amendment's implementation. As the estimated costs or economic benefit to persons directly affected by the proposed amendment, the economic impact statement provides: "The proposed amendment is not expected to have an additional economic impact on existing health care providers, health care consumers, or certificate of need applicants who prepared applications under existing rules. Previous and current certificate of need decisions by the department have been made in consideration of existing Federal regulations and the criterion contained in 10-5.11(3) has been interpreted in accordance with Federal regulations." It was noted that the proposed amendment would affect competition among providers and certificate of need applicants consistent with existing rules and the proposed amendments. After discussions with others charged with the responsibility of implementing the Certificate of Need program, and based upon her own experience as a health planner, the author of the economic impact statement explained the "data and method of estimating costs" as follows: "Immediate costs for implementing the pro- posed amendment were calculated based on cur- rent data available. Printing and distri- bution costs were based on similar experiences with HRS printing and distribution costs." This approach was utilized based upon the author's understanding that the proposed rule imposed no additional or new criteria for review of certificate of need applications.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 8, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. 3. In the Petition Rules "33-3.001, 33-3.006, 33-3.0025, 33-22.004(3)(A), 33-22.0012 Code 3, s. 3-12, 33-29 and 33-4.001, 33-4.002" and Internal Operating Procedure Number AG-91.51 were challenged. Most of the Challenged Rules are lengthy and deal with a number of subjects. The common thread of the Challenged Rules and IOP concerns the possession of contraband and punishment therefor. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioners frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 2, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 2. That the (Respondents) Rules as 33-29 et. seq. 33- 3.006, 33-3.0025, 33-22.0012 Code 3, s 3-12 is [sic] invalid, arbitrary, capricious, vague, delegation to exceed, modify, contravenes, the specific provisions of laws [sic] implemented, citation required by 120.54(7), Florida Statutes and 944.09(1)(A). 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 punishing the Petitioner for having contraband in his possession. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rules and the IOP. 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 or the IOP are unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rules and the IOP are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 4, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On December 23, 1991, an Amended Petition was filed by the Petitioner. The Amended Petition consolidated the Petitioner's challenges in this case and case number 90-7190R. The Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, the Petitioner includes the Department of Legal Affairs, and the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, the Respondents in case number 91-7190R as Respondents and addresses his challenge to other rules, internal operating procedures and directives of the other named Respondents challenged in case number 91-7190R. The Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rules, the IOP or the other matters challenged in the Amended Petition are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. 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.
