Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On February 17, 1990, Frank Vitale was arrested at or near the ABC Liquors at 3097 Curry Ford Road, Orlando, Florida for trafficking in cocaine (400 grams or more). On February 17, 1990, Noel Frederick Shumann was arrested at or near the ABC Liquors (ABC) at 3097 Curry Ford Road, Orlando, Florida for trafficking in cocaine (400 grams or more). Noel Frederick Shumann was acquitted for both the charges of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine on May 2, 1991. Noel Frederick Shumann was present at the ABC on February 17, 1990. Noel Frederick Shumann denies that he was involved in any illegal drug transactions; however, he admits that an illegal drug transaction occurred on February 17, 1990 at the ABC. Frank Vitale, who was convicted of the charges, testified on behalf of Noel Frederick Shumann at the criminal proceeding. Mr. Vitale's testimony is as follows: That the money used to purchase the estimated retail value of cocaine of $9,400.00 was in fact Mr. Vitale's money. That Mr. Vitale had accumulated this money from the sale of an interest in some green houses and monies from the sale of jewelry from his flea market business. He stored the money at Mr. Shumann's house while living there for a brief period of time. On February 17, 1990, he called Mr. Shumann and asked Mr. Shumann to bring envelopes containing the money to the ABC Lounge. Mr. Vitale was not living at Mr. Shumann's house at the time he called Mr. Shumann and asked him to bring the envelope containing the money to the ABC Lounge. These envelopes were stored in the bedroom Mr. Vitale resided in while living in Mr. Shumann's house. Mr. Shumann acquiesced with Mr. Vitale's request. Mr. Vitale further testified that Mr. Shumann had nothing to do with the drug transaction, did not know there was a drug transaction taking place at the ABC Lounge until such time as he arrived and remained at the lounge for a period of time. Mr. Vitale further testified that Mr. Shumann was not to share in the cocaine or any expected profits from the sale of the cocaine. The drug transaction involved 500 grams of cocaine. The estimated retail value of the cocaine was $9,400.00. The money used to purchase the cocaine was in Noel Frederick Shumann's vehicle. Mr. Shumann was assessed on February 26, 1990, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, for the delinquent tax, penalty and interest relating to the drug transaction which took place on February 17, 1990. The jeopardy assessment is a correct and proper assessment both as to form and content of an illegal drug transaction involving cocaine with the retail value of $9,400.00. Mr. Shumann does not contest the mathematical accuracy of the tax assessment nor the procedures followed in issuing the notice. Mr. Shumann has not paid the sales tax assessed and the amount claimed has not been paid by another on his behalf. Mr. Shumann asserts that the assessment is improper only because he was not personally involved in the illegal transaction and, therefore, committed no act to give rise to the tax. Consequently, he argues the assessment against him should be dismissed. Prior to February 17, 1990, Agent Cannon, an undercover narcotics investigator, was introduced to Frank Vitale. Mr. Vitale met Agent Cannon through a third party, a confidential informant, named Barbara Anderson. Ms. Anderson advised Agent Cannon that Mr. Vitale wanted to purchase cocaine. Ms. Anderson had known Mr. Vitale for some time prior to February 17, 1990. On some occasion prior to February 17, 1990, Mr. Vitale spoke to Ms. Anderson regarding his partner in the drug transaction. When Noel Frederick Shumann arrived at the ABC on February 17, 1990, Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to Ms. Anderson as "his partner." Because he remained present during the activities that followed, and because he told Ms. Anderson that he was there to keep an eye on his money, Ms. Anderson presumed Mr. Shumann was the partner in the drug transaction to whom Mr. Vitale had earlier referred. When Agent Cannon arrived to complete the drug transaction, Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to him as his partner but maintained he (Vitale) would be handling the deal. In fact, Mr. Vitale became very upset any time Agent Cannon attempted to speak with Mr. Shumann instead of dealing with him exclusively. At one point in time, Agent Cannon threatened to abort the transaction since Mr. Vitale would not let him count the money. The money, which was stored in Mr. Shumann's car at that time, was not counted until Mr. Shumann told Mr. Vitale to let Agent Cannon count the money. Mr. Shumann was aware that Mr. Vitale was attempting to purchase cocaine from Agent Cannon and was aware that the money to be utilized in that purchase was in his (Shumann's) car. During a second conversation, Mr. Shumann directed Mr. Vitale to weigh and test the cocaine to be purchased and to proceed with the transaction if the substance looked good. Mr. Vitale then left the lounge with Agent Cannon and proceeded across the street to the van where Agent Cannon's partner was located with the drugs. Following the exchange of the money for the cocaine, Mr. Vitale was placed under arrest and the MBI team converged. Subsequently, Mr. Vitale and Mr. Shumann were placed in a police patrol car that was wired to record their conversation. The taped conversation (Petitioner's exhibit 1) contains statements by Mr. Vitale to the effect that he knew the police were listening, that he was sorry to get Mr. Shumann into "this," and that Mr. Shumann should "put everything on me (Vitale)." During the counting of the money, the weighing and testing of the cocaine, and the sale and purchase of the cocaine between Agent Cannon and Mr. Vitale, Mr. Shumann remained in the lounge. Mr. Shumann continued to talk to Ms. Anderson even though he knew a cocaine transaction was proceeding, knew that he had been introduced as Mr. Vitale's partner, knew that the money for the transaction was stored first in his house then in his vehicle, and knew that the supplier (Agent Cannon) had sought authorization from him to count the money and complete the deal. It is wholly incredible to conclude that a disinterested party would have remained in the lounge throughout the foregoing events. Cocaine is a controlled substance as defined by Florida law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order confirming the notice of assessment and jeopardy findings and finding the amount due to be $10,575.00 plus interest (1% per month until paid). DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Petitioner submitted proposed findings in a form such that rulings cannot be entered. Petitioner summarized: the testimony of Chuck Cannon; the testimony of Mr. Shumann; the patrol car tape (Petitioner's ex. 1); the stipulated statements of facts submitted by the parties; the deposition of Vernon Taylor; and the testimony of Barbara Anderson. Such summaries did not present paragraphs with factual allegations in a form such that specific rulings can be made. Such summaries included argument, irrelevant information and comment on the evidence. Except as set forth in the findings of fact above, they must be rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or as argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent listed the stipulated facts submitted by the parties. They have been accepted and incorporated in the foregoing recommended order as findings of fact. As to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent, which began on page 4 of the proposed order, the following specific rulings are given. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to Ms. Anderson as his partner. It is not accepted that he specifically told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Shumann was his partner in this drug transaction. That factual conclusion has been reached based upon a preponderance of all evidence presented in this case. Paragraphs 11 through 20 are accepted. Copies to: Robert J. Buonauro 14 E. Washington Street Suite 602 Orlando, Florida 32801 James McAuley Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be exempt from disqualification from employment in a position of trust, pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency is the state entity which supports vulnerable persons with various developmental disabilities. The Agency contracts with direct service providers and is responsible for regulating the employment of persons serving in positions of trust with these providers. Vision Builders One, Inc., is a service provider for the Agency. Mr. Gaskin applied with Vision Builders One, Inc., to become a caregiver, a position of trust which requires completion of level 2 background screening. The Department of Children and Families conducts initial screening on behalf of the Agency. Background screening and local criminal records revealed a significant history of involvement with law enforcement for Mr. Gaskin.2/ In response to inquiries concerning possession of cocaine on December 2, 1988, Mr. Gaskin stated: I was young, not thinking straight, and decided to experiment with selling illegal drugs. I was arrested in a known location for having three cocaine rocks. I was placed on probation. On February 8, 1989, Mr. Gaskin entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, a felony of the third degree. In response to inquiries concerning violation of probation on May 31, 1990, Mr. Gaskin stated: I didn’t want to result back to selling illegal drugs. I was unable to find employment; therefore, I didn’t have money to pay my probation fees. I violated and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. In response to inquiries concerning resisting an officer without violence on April 9, 1993, Mr. Gaskin stated: I do not recall this arrest or charge. Once researched, the clerk was unable to locate court documents for this charge. In response to inquiries concerning contempt of court regarding child support on November 15, 1993, Mr. Gaskin stated: I was unemployed and unable to pay the child support purge. In response to inquiries concerning possession of cocaine on February 15, 1994, Mr. Gaskin stated: I was hanging out with a few guys, and one of them left cocaine in the backseat of my car, unknowingly to me. This charge against me was dropped. In response to inquiries concerning cocaine possession on February 5, 1995, Mr. Gaskin stated: I was parked in my car and had cocaine in my possession when the law officers approached my car. I received one year house arrest probation, six months weekend jail, and 75 hours of community service work, in addition to court fines and suspended driver license. On June 19, 1995, Mr. Gaskin entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, a felony of the third degree. In response to inquiries concerning a domestic battery on July 20, 2000, Mr. Gaskin stated: My wife and I were separated. I stayed away for four weeks and when I returned to our home, my wife had a male friend in the house. I was upset and she wouldn’t let me in our home, so I knocked the door in to enter. When entering, she and I exchanged hurtful words and we struck each other. She called police and I was arrested. Those charges were downsized to lesser charges. I was sentenced to one year probation, attend and complete an anger management class. On January 31, 2001, Mr. Gaskin entered a plea of nolo contendere to trespass of an occupied dwelling, a misdemeanor of the first degree and to domestic battery, a misdemeanor of the first degree. In response to inquiries concerning contempt of court for violation of a protective injunction regarding domestic violence on September 3, 2000, Mr. Gaskin stated: My bondsman neglected to notify me of my court date; therefore, I didn’t appear on day of court. When informed of the contempt of court, I turned myself in, so no arrest record. The bondsman notified the court of negligence and the contempt of court charges were dropped. In response to inquiries concerning failure to appear on March 1, 2002, Mr. Gaskin stated: I do not recall this arrest or charge. I will be following up on researching to receive clarification that this was actually me. Once the research is completed I will provide a detailed statement. In response to inquiries concerning violation of probation for trespassing in an occupied dwelling March 1, 2002, Mr. Gaskin stated: I was violated because my wife made an untrue statement to the police that I was harassing her. I called to ask for visitation with my son and we got into a verbal argument. In response to inquiries concerning driving while license suspended on July 24, 2010, Mr. Gaskin stated: I got a traffic ticket leaving work which violated my probation. I notified my probation officer and turned myself in, so there wasn’t an arrest. My probation was re-instated; I then paid it off and completed it to its entirety. Since September 10, 2002, Mr. Gaskin has been released from all confinement, supervision, and non-monetary sanctions imposed for the disqualifying offenses he committed. Since April 14, 2016, Mr. Gaskin has been released from all monetary conditions. Mr. Gerry Driscoll is the regional operations manager for the Southeast Region in the Agency. He has served in his current position for 3 years and has been employed with the Agency for 17 years. Mr. Driscoll credibly testified that the Agency has responsibility for a very vulnerable population, many of whom are unable to later tell others about the actions of their caregivers. This population is thus very susceptible to exploitation. Mr. Driscoll noted that the Agency must consider any prior instance of violence very carefully. While in his written submission to the Agency Mr. Gaskin stated that he never caused any harm or injury to any victim, at hearing he admitted that he caused injury to his wife when he hit her after breaking into their home and injury to others in selling them controlled substances, testimony that is credited. Mr. Gaskin submitted three character reference letters to the Agency stating generally that he is hardworking, intelligent, and committed. Mr. Gaskin further stated that he was very remorseful and admitted he had made poor choices in his life in the past. He explained that he just wants an opportunity to be a productive citizen, to work, and to take care of his family. Mr. Gaskin seems sincere in his desire to care for vulnerable persons, and asks for a chance to work with them to demonstrate that he is rehabilitated. However, the statute requires that rehabilitation be shown first through other work history and by additional means: only then may an exemption to disqualification be granted. While Mr. Gaskin stated that he is rehabilitated, he offered little evidence to clearly demonstrate that. He completed some courses toward certification as a firefighter in 2004-2005, but has evidently not pursued that further. He completed some courses required as a condition of probation, but has not participated in other counseling or coursework. Mr. Gaskin’s work history in the past decade, a very important element in demonstrating rehabilitation, has been very “sketchy,” as Mr. Driscoll testified. Mr. Gaskin indicated that his last employment ended in July 2014. He was employed by Manpower Staffing Services doing temporary work for about 14 months in several jobs such as maintenance worker, demolition worker, and equipment/maintenance technician. He also worked at United Parcel Service for a couple of months in 2010. Although Mr. Gaskin has not had steady work in recent years, he noted that when needed, he assists his father-in-law with handyman work, his son with his entertainment business, his cousin with his bail bonds business, and his nephew with his marketing business. He noted that he also assists at his church. Passage of time is a factor to be considered in determining rehabilitation, and the last disqualifying offense was many years ago. However, Mr. Gaskin’s history since his disqualifying offenses continues to reflect minor incidents and does not contain sufficient positive indications of rehabilitation. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated and that he will not present a danger if he is exempted from his disqualification from employment in a position of trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Mr. Dwayne Gaskin’s application for exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and/or guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Marilyn Joan Pelaez held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 463945 covering the subjects of elementary and secondary physical education and secondary English. On February 20, 1989, while returning home from a party, Respondent became disoriented, sleepy and was in a section of Tampa of which she was not familiar. She pulled her car off the road and into the driveway of a business establishment (Cox Lumber Company) and went to sleep. Some time thereafter Deputy Sheriff Bradley Sanderson, on patrol, observed the parked car and, following standard procedures, stopped his vehicle to investigate. Upon approaching the car, he observed Respondent apparently asleep. He rapped on the windshield, Respondent awakened and opened the car door on the driver's side. When the door was opened, Deputy Sanderson saw what appeared to be drug paraphernalia in the pocket of the door and seized the "pipe". Although this pipe was offered into evidence, it was not accepted. In lieu thereof, a description of the "pipe" was read into the record. This paraphernalia seized is used for "snorting" cocaine rather than smoking it. The pipe was tested on the scene, and traces of cocaine were found in the pipe. Respondent was forthwith arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and cocaine and transported to the sheriff's office. She was subsequently brought to trial on charges of unlawful possession of cocaine and having in her possession drug paraphernalia with intent to use to ingest unlawful drugs (Exhibit 1). Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to these charges, adjudication of guilt was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for one year (Exhibit 2). Respondent readily acknowledged the above facts but contends, without contradiction, that she did not own the "pipe" found in the car door pocket and was unaware that the instrument had been left there by an unknown person. She admitted that she was careless in not locking her car, but acknowledged that the car had been left unlocked and outdoors all weekend. Respondent further testified that she had never used cocaine since experimenting with it in college, and that she requested the officers who arrested her to test for cocaine in her system, and they refused. Had this not been true, the officers who arrested Respondent were present, heard the testimony and were available to rebut this evidence. The deputy who was called in rebuttal reinforced Respondent's testimony that she had opened the door immediately upon being aroused and did not try to close the door when he saw and reached for the pipe. Respondent pleaded nolo contendere because she had no defense to the charge that drug paraphernalia had been found in her car and, therefore, in her possession, and that plea would get her probation rather than a possible prison sentence if she contested the charges. No evidence was presented that Respondent's arrest had received wide publicity in the Hillsborough County School System, nor was other evidence presented respecting Respondent's effectiveness in the school system subsequent to her arrest.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 1989, against Marilyn Joan Pelaez be dismissed. ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted, except for the following. Respondent became lost when she was fifteen minutes driving time from her home. Inconsistent with H. O. Finding #2. 9. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 18. Accepted as modified by H. O. #11. 21-24. Rejected as beyond the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. 25. Accepted insofar as included in H. O. #8. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven G. Burton, Esquire Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, FL 33601-3273 Marilyn Joan Pelaez 13809 Fletcher's Mill Drive Tampa, FL 33613 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin Schaap Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 W. Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Mark Herron, Esquire 216 S. Monroe Street Suite 300 Tallahassee, FL 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1990, Petitioner, Judith Madeline Feldman (Feldman), purchased a $10 rock of cocaine from an undercover police detective during a police operation to combat street level cocaine dealing. The police found a pipe used to smoke cocaine in the console of Feldman's car. The pipe field tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the purchase of the cocaine and the possession of the cocaine pipe, Feldman was arrested and charged with purchasing cocaine, possessing cocaine, and possessing drug paraphernalia. In December 1990, Feldman pled nolo contendere to one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Adjudication was withheld, and Feldman was placed on probation for two years. By court order dated February 24, 1992, the records concerning the arrest on July 5, 1990, were sealed. In March 1996, Feldman filed an application with the Florida Department of Education for a Florida Educator's Certificate. The application form contains the following inquiry concerning the applicant's arrest record: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. Any record that has NOT been SEALED or EXPUNGED must be reported in this section. Feldman checked the No box on the arrest record section of the application. The application contained a section inquiring about sealed or expunged records. The application contained the following: Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation) and such record(s) was sealed or expunged? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. SEALED or EXPUNGED records MUST BE REPORTED pursuant ss. 943.0585 and 943.059, FS. However, the existence of such records WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED nor made part of your certification file which is public record. Feldman checked the No box on the sealed/expunged record section of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application should be granted with a one-year probation and appropriate conditions relating to drug screening and counseling during the probation period. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Judith M. Feldman 5030 26th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32966 Judith M. Feldman 1126 West Oglethorpe Highway Hinesville, Georgia 31313-5415
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violations of Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(a) and 561.29 (1)(c), that respondent be fined $1,000.00 and that his beverage license be suspended for a period of six (6) months or until payment in full of the $1,000.00 fine, whichever last occurs. RECOMMENDED this 5 day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9575 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5 day of September, 1984.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner’s request for exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On June 21, 1991, Aaron Foreman (Petitioner) was convicted of one count of "possession of THC with intent to deliver" in the Circuit Court of Walworth County, State of Wisconsin, Case Number 90CR00080. At the time of the arrest, the Petitioner was a student at the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater. He resided with several other students in the upstairs apartment portion of a residence. On or about February 1, 1990, local Whitewater law enforcement officials, apparently investigating one of the roommates for burglary, executed a search warrant and entered into the apartment where the Petitioner was living. During the search of the apartment, law enforcement officers discovered a quantity of marijuana in the apartment and bedrooms of the residents. The Petitioner had a refrigerator in his bedroom, within which law enforcement officers discovered a large plastic bag containing 26 smaller plastic bags, each containing a quantity of marijuana. The total weight of the plastic bags of marijuana within the Petitioner's refrigerator was identified in the charging document as approximately 126 grams. In Count One of the charge, the Petitioner and three other persons (apparently the roommates) were jointly charged with possession with intent to deliver more than 500 grams of THC, an element of marijuana. In Count Four of the charge, the Petitioner was individually charged with possession with intent to deliver 91 grams of THC. The record of the hearing does not establish the reason for the difference between the weight of the marijuana allegedly discovered and the THC quantities with which the defendants were charged. According to the Petitioner's testimony at hearing, the Petitioner participated in marijuana use, and bought and sold marijuana within a "small circle of friends" and his roommates. On June 21, 1991, the Petitioner entered a plea of "no contest" to Count Four as part of an agreement to resolve the drug possession charges, and as stated previously, was convicted of felony under Wisconsin law. According to the Judgement of Conviction, Count One of the charge was dismissed. As a result of the plea agreement, the Petitioner was sentenced to nine months in jail, two years of probation, and a fine of approximately $2,700. The Petitioner served the jail sentence in a work release program, continued to attend college and obtained an undergraduate degree in sociology from the University of Wisconsin. The Petitioner paid the fine imposed by the sentence and successfully completed the probationary period as of September 19, 1993. Subsequent to completion of the sentence, the Petitioner became employed as a licensed social worker in Wisconsin. From 1993 to 1999, the Petitioner was employed by "Southeastern Youth and Family Services," as a social worker. The Petitioner's employment evaluations range from "very good" to "outstanding." In July 1999, the Petitioner underwent a background screening prompted by his application for employment by Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc., a program that, in part, provides services to young persons involved in the juvenile justice system and funded through contract with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). Based on the conviction, the Department notified Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc., that the Petitioner was disqualified from employment. The Petitioner requested that the Department review the disqualification. The Department responded by letter dated June 19, 1999, advising that the desk review would be granted and identifying the information that the Petitioner was required to submit to facilitate the review. The Petitioner responded to the June 19 letter by supplying the requested information to the Department. The matter was apparently reviewed by a "Priscilla A. Zachary, BSU Supervisor" for the Department, who forwarded the file along with a cover memo to Perry Turner, the Department's Inspector General. As Inspector General, Mr. Turner is the person authorized by the Department to make decisions on disqualification exemption applications. Ms. Zachary's cover memo incorrectly identifies the crime for which the Petitioner was convicted and states that the Petitioner's June 21, 1991, conviction was for "Possession with Intent to Deliver" more than 500 grams of THC. According to the Judgement of Conviction, Count One of the charge, wherein the Petitioner and other persons were jointly charged with possession with intent to deliver more than 500 grams of THC, was dismissed. On August 5, 1999, Mr. Turner determined that the Petitioner's application for exemption should be denied. Mr. Turner based his decision on his belief that the Petitioner's felony conviction was for an amount of marijuana beyond that which Mr. Turner believes could be reasonably identified as being for "personal use" and which was intended for distribution. By letter dated August 5, 1999, the Petitioner was notified of the Department's decision by letter and advised of his right to challenge the denial in an administrative hearing. During the hearing, the Petitioner testified as to the events leading to his conviction and identified his efforts at rehabilitation. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that his initial experience with marijuana occurred in approximately 1988, when he entered the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater. The Petitioner testified that at the time of the 1990 arrest, he was an "immature" college student who recreationally used marijuana within his circle of friends and with whom he sold or exchanged marijuana. Other than the Petitioner's admission, there is no evidence that the Petitioner actually sold marijuana. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was arrested or charged with the sale of marijuana. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was a part of any continuing marijuana distribution organization. There is no evidence that, other than the arrest at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has ever been arrested for any other reason. Review of the charging documents suggests that the charge of "intent to deliver" was based on the quantity of the marijuana found in the apartment and the apparent candor with which the residents dealt with the law enforcement officials who executed the search warrant and investigated the situation. The Petitioner's arrest occurred approximately eleven years ago. The Petitioner's conviction was approximately ten years ago. The Petitioner completed the probationary portion of his sentence more than seven years ago. There is no evidence that there was any physical injury or harm done to any individual as a result of the Petitioner's conviction. There is no evidence that granting the Petitioner's request for exemption presents a danger to the Petitioner or to any other person. The Petitioner has continued with his education and in December 2000 received his master's degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The Petitioner has also sought to obtain a pardon from the Governor of Wisconsin. By letter dated August 28, 2000, the Governor's Pardon Advisory Board notified the Petitioner that it was recommending to the Governor that a pardon be granted. Although the vote by the Board was not unanimous, the majority of the members believed that the pardon should be granted "based on positive adjustment, lack of subsequent criminal justice system contacts, non-violent nature of the crime, and valid job concerns." As of the date of the hearing, the Governor of Wisconsin had not acted on the Board's recommendation to grant the Petitioner's pardon request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice grant the request of Aaron Foreman for exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Aaron Foreman 10500 West Fountain Avenue Apartment No. 411 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Reyes P. Ramos, was employed as a law enforcement officer by the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and was duly certified by petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Department), having been issued certificate number 19-83-002-05 on October 29, 1983. On January 30, 1990, respondent, as part of his annual physical examination for the Opa-Locka Police Department, reported to Toxicology Testing Services (TTS) and provided a urine sample to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the sample taken from respondent proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, in a concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter. Such finding is consistent with the ingestion of cocaine, as cocaine is the only drug commonly available that, when ingested into the human body, produces the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. On February 5, 1990, the Opa-Locka Police Department notified respondent that the analysis of his urine sample had proved positive for the presence of cocaine, a controlled substance. In response, respondent offered to provide another sample for further analysis. Later that day, February 5, 1990, respondent provided a second sample of urine to TTS to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the second sample also proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, but this time at a concentration of 9.2 nanograms per milliliter. Such reduced concentration is consistent with the initial concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter disclosed by the first sample, assuming abstinence during the intervening period. In concluding that the urine samples respondent gave proved positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite, careful consideration has been given to the collection, storage and handling procedures adopted by TTS, as well as its testing methods. In this regard, the procedures and methods employed by TTS were shown to provide reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produce, through Gas Chromograph/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS), a reliable measure of the concentration of cocaine metabolite in the body. 1/ While the testing demonstrates the presence of cocaine metabolite in respondent's system, and therefore the presence of cocaine, it does not establish how ingestion occurred. 2/ It may be reasonably inferred, however, that such ingestion was proscribed by law, absent proof that the subject drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issued by a physician or that the presence of cocaine metabolite could otherwise be lawfully explained. In response to the testing which revealed the presence of cocaine metabolite in his urine, respondent credibly denied the use of cocaine, and offered the testimony of a number of witnesses who know him well to lend credence to his denial. Those witnesses, who also testified credibly, observed that respondent is a person of good moral character who, among other qualities has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and the character to observe the difference, has respect for the rights of others, has respect for the law, and could be relied upon in a position of trust and confidence. Moreover, from the testimony of those witnesses who have known respondent for an extended period of time, commencing well prior to the incident in question, it may be concluded that, in their opinions, it is the antithesis of respondent's character to have ingested or used cocaine. Apart from his denial, respondent offered two possible explanations for the presence of cocaine in his system: (1) that, during the week of January 18, 1990, he had been in contact with four to five K-9 training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine, while cleaning out his dog's possessions, and (2) that he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, during the course of duty, in the early part of January 1990. As to the first explanation, the proof demonstrates that respondent was, and had been for some time, a canine officer with the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and had a dog named "Eagle" as his partner. "Eagle" was a cross-trained drug and work dog. In or about September 1988, respondent and his dog attended narcotic detection training through the Florida Highway Patrol, and received training aids, which contained "pseudo-cocaine," for use in training dogs in the detection of cocaine. These aids were comprised of newborn baby socks, inside of which was placed pseudo-cocaine. The socks were then closed at the top with rubber bands and placed inside a folded towel, which was then rolled and taped. According to respondent, he continued to use these aids 2-3 times a week, after leaving the Florida Highway Patrol course, to keep his dog proficient. Eagle died in early January 1990 and, according to respondent, the week of January 18, 1990, respondent cleared a number of items that were used in the care or training of Eagle from a small aluminum shed in his back yard. Among those items were the training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine. According to respondent, he disposed of the training aids by cutting the tape from the towels, removed the sock, and then shook the pseudo-cocaine into a trash can, which caused some residue to become airborne and contact him. Respondent's counsel theorizes that such contact with the pseudo-cocaine, as well as the possibility that some residue could have been lodged under respondent's fingernails, when coupled with the fact that respondent occasionally bites his nails, could be an explanation for the positive reading respondent received. Notably, respondent offered no proof at hearing, through representatives from the Florida Highway Patrol or otherwise, as to the chemical composition of the pseudo-cocaine. Under such circumstances, there is no showing of record that the pseudo-cocaine could have resulted in the positive reading he received, and it would be pure speculation to conclude otherwise. As to respondent's second explanation, that in early January 1990, during the course of duty, he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, it likewise does not provide a rational explanation for his positive test results. Notably, according to respondent, that rock cocaine was bagged and, necessarily, he would not have had physical contact with the substance. Moreover, even if touched such would not explain its ingestion, and, considering the lapse of time from the event and his testing, is not a rational explanation for the source of his positive results. While the explanations respondent advanced at hearing were not persuasive, such does not compel the conclusion that his testimony is to be discredited. Indeed, if respondent never used cocaine, it is not particularly telling that he could not offer a plausible explanation for what he perceived to be an aberration. Here, while the results of the urinalysis point toward guilt, respondent's credible testimony, the character evidence offered on his behalf, and respondent's employment record suggest otherwise. With regard to respondent's employment history, the proof demonstrates that respondent was on active duty with the United States military from 1966 until 1972, and with the Florida National Guard (FNG) from 1974 until 1983. Prior to reverting to an inactive status with the FNG, respondent attended and graduated from the Southeastern Institute of Criminal Justice, a police academy, and was thereafter certified as a law enforcement officer. Following certification, respondent was employed by the Village of Indian Creek as a police officer for one year, and from January 1985 until his severance in 1990 as a police officer with the City of Opa-Locka. Currently, respondent is employed by the FNG, with the rank of Sergeant First Class, as a military criminal investigator assigned to counter drug programs for the Department of Justice. From respondent's initial employment as a police officer through his current employment, but for the incident in question, respondent has consistently been recognized as a professional, loyal and dedicated police officer who has also dedicated substantial personal time and resources to community service. During this service, he was frequently commended for his performance, and he has further demonstrated dedication to his profession through continued training in the law enforcement field. Among those who testified on his behalf, and spoke approvingly of respondent's good moral character, were Christina Royo, a sworn law enforcement officer with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and Alejandro Suarez, a Sergeant First Class with the United States Military, employed as a criminal intelligence analyst, and currently attached to respondent's FNG unit. Each of these witnesses are employed in positions of trust involving sensitive areas of law enforcement, and have known the respondent well for over fifteen years. In their opinions, which are credible, respondent enjoys a reputation reflecting good moral character and, it may be gleamed from their testimony, the use of controlled substances by respondent would be most uncharacteristic. Given the nominal amount of cocaine metabolite disclosed by testing and the credible proof regarding respondent's character, the inference that would normally carry petitioner's burden following proof of a positive test for cocaine metabolite, that such finding reflected the unlawful ingestion of cocaine, cannot prevail. Rather, considering the proof, no conclusion can be reached, with any degree of certainty, as to the reason for the positive test results. Accordingly, such results, standing alone, do not support the conclusion that respondent unlawfully ingested cocaine or that he is lacking of good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March 1995.
Findings Of Fact Richard Stephan Flatt, M.D., Respondent, is licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner) as a medical doctor and was so licensed at all times here relevant. Respondent has been a Board certified Dermatologist since 1957 and has practiced Dermatology in Sarasota for some 20 years. He is 54 years old. Tana Williams was a patient of Respondent in 1971 when he first treated her for warts, and he also treated Ms. Williams' daughter. Afterward she left Sarasota but returned in 1975 or 1976, at which time she was divorced. She visited Respondent's office for treatment of warts on 5 April 1976. Her appointment was near the close of Respondent's office hours. During this visit she told Respondent she was divorced; that she liked older men; and that she would like to see him socially. He suggested she come back to the office after 5:30 p.m. when his nurse normally departed. Upon her return after 5:30, Respondent and Ms. Williams discussed an arrangement whereby he would contribute $250 per month towards her support and spend weekends at the apartment she would occupy. According to Respondent's testimony, at this time he was going through a mid-life crisis and was delighted with the prospects of being desired by a woman 23 years his junior. Some two weeks later the first weekend was shared. Although the situation was very satisfactory to Respondent, the $250 per month was insufficient even to pay the rent, let alone satisfy Ms. Williams' money requirements. Accordingly, Respondent found the liaison was costing more than he could fund from his ready cash. After the 5 April 1976 visit, Ms. Williams did not again visit Respondent's office, or consider herself Respondent' s patient. In addition to cash, Ms. Williams also wanted drugs for her nervous condition and Respondent began supplying her with Quaaludes in the latter part of 1978. By 1979, Ms. Williams was psychologically dependent on Quaaludes and was taking 10 to 12 per day. As Respondent became more financially strapped the Quaaludes were provided for the additional purpose of being converted by Ms. Williams into cash to help maintain her life style. In 1976 Respondent began ordering Quaaludes and Preludin from New York drug houses under his DEA authorization. The Quaaludes started out in quantities of 200 every few months but increased to 1,000 nearly every month by the end of 1979. Most, if not all, of the 11,000 300 mg. Quaaludes Respondent ordered on an Official Order Form for Controlled Substances were given to Ms. Williams. In addition, Respondent ordered Preludin which he also gave to Ms. Williams. Both Preludin and Quaaludes are Class II controlled substances. Due to Ms. Williams' increasing dependence on Quaaludes, nearly half of these drugs given her by Respondent were taken by her. Petitioner presented no evidence that Preludin was wrongfully prescribed or abused. During the nearly four years the relationship continued, several interruptions occurred, due largely to Ms. Williams' living with other men, one of whom she married for a short period of about two months. During the periods Ms. Williams was living with other men, she would contact Respondent to continue or renew their liaison and even threatened suicide and to publicize their relationship to his wife if he did not continue to see her. In the latter months of their association, assignations were arranged at motels at which Respondent gave Ms. Williams money and/or drugs in exchange for sex. In addition to supplying Ms. Williams with drugs obtained on Official Order Forms, Respondent also wrote prescriptions in Ms. Williams' name, in the names of his children, or in the name of a fictitious person. Those prescriptions written in names other than Ms. Williams, Respondent took to Wallpole's Pharmacy personally and picked up the drugs. By this procedure from late 1978 through 1979 Respondent acquired an additional 1,249 300-mg. Quaaludes, 150 Preludin Endurettes, and 100 Preludin tablets which he gave to Ms. Williams. Using a confidential informant, the Sarasota police made two controlled buys of Quaaludes from Ms. Williams and on one of these occasions the informant was wired for sound so his conversations with Ms. Williams could be monitored. With information received from the confidential informant and a surveillance of Ms. Williams' residence, the police became aware that Respondent was Ms. Williams' supplier of drugs. On the morning of 8 February 1980, Ms. Williams was arrested at her home on charges of possession and sale of controlled substances. After being advised of her rights, she was taken down to the State Attorney's office where she was told that she could get up to 10 years in prison for possession and sale of drugs, but that if she cooperated with the police in their case against Respondent, the State Attorney's office would recommend probation rather than jail when she was sentenced. Prior to the arrest of Ms. Williams the Sarasota Police, state and federal drug authorities were aware of Respondent's involvement and were investigating. Respondent, too, was aware of his increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution and requested a pharmacist to pass the word to the proper authorities that he would like to surrender his DEA certificate, under the authority of which he ordered controlled substances. On February 12, 1980 federal, state and local authorities, armed with information that Respondent had ordered some 11,000 Quaaludes from three New York drug companies during the period from 1976 to the present, visited Respondent's office, told him he was suspected of narcotics violation, read him his rights and asked to see his records. Respondent cooperated fully with the authorities and presented his records which confirmed that Respondent could not account for more than 10,600 Quaaludes during the period from 1976 to the date of the inspection. Respondent made a voluntary statement to the police in which he acknowledged many of the facts noted above. He also voluntarily surrendered his narcotics license. On 22 May 1980, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County of two counts of possession of methaqualone and two counts of sale of methaqualone. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but the Court sentenced Respondent to probation for a period of three years and a $5,000.00 fine on each of the two counts of possession and sale.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Harvey Donley, is liable for the jeopardy assessment as set forth in the Revised Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings dated August 6, 1990.
Findings Of Fact On June 9, 1989, Petitioner sold a quantity of cocaine to a confidential informant at Albertson's Food Store on Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. On June 9, 1989, Petitioner drove to Albertson's Food Store, parked his car, and got into the confidential informant's vehicle. Shortly after Petitioner had entered the confidential informant's vehicle and conducted a transaction of cocaine, he was arrested. At the time of Petitioner's arrest, one plastic bag containing cocaine was recovered from the seat next to where Petitioner had been seated. A second bag of cocaine was recovered from Petitioner's shirt. After Petitioner's arrest, Petitioner told Sgt. McKissack that he got the cocaine from one Paul Dorlag. Petitioner further told Sgt. McKissack that the bag of cocaine in his shirt pocket was his "cut" of the cocaine. After Petitioner's arrest, police officers executed a search warrant at Petitioner's residence. During the search, under the search warrant, a small quantity of paraphernalia and drug residue were seized in Petitioner's home. This paraphernalia consisted of a plastic cocaine straw. Other evidence seized during the search of Petitioner's residence consisted of a cedar box containing cannabis residue and one bottle of Insitol. After his arrest, Petitioner was charged with trafficking in cocaine. Twenty-five and one-half (25.5) grams of cocaine were recovered from Petitioner's person when he was arrested. The estimated retail price of the cocaine seized from Petitioner was $100 per gram. The estimated retail value of the total amount of cocaine seized from Petitioner amounted to $2,550. The Revised Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings dated August 6, 1990, is legally valid and mathematically correct. The 50% tax according to the revised assessment is $1,275. The 25% surcharge according to the revised assessment is $637.50. The penalty of 5% per month according to the revised assessment is $95.63. Interest accrued through August 2, 1990, amounts to $238.14. The total amount of the legal assessment against Petitioner is $2,246.27. The additional interest for the period from August 2, 1990, to the date of the hearing, January 31, 1991, amounts to $114.66. Interest continues to accrue until the assessment is paid. The total assessment due through January 31, 1991, is $2,360.93.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order upholding the revised assessment in the amount of $2,360.93, plus additional interest as shall become due after the date of the hearing. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2734 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Revenue 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-20(1-20) and 21(16). COPIES FURNISHED: Lee R. Rohe Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Harvey Donley 4918-B Crawfordville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer in the State of Florida have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, the following facts are found: The Respondent, James L. Jackson, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer in 1981. At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Respondent was a correctional officer sergeant employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. In late July or early August of 1989, during the course of investigating illegal conduct by other employees of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, a Detective Dansky, then working in the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, was told by one of the admitted wrongdoers that he had heard that several employees of the Sheriff's Department, including the Respondent, were involved in criminal activity related to the possession, use, or distribution of controlled substances. Shortly after receiving that information, Detective Dansky contacted the Respondent and requested that he provide a statement in response to the allegation that he had been involved in illegal drug activity. On August 8, 1989, the Respondent reported to the Internal Affairs Office, where he met with Detective Dansky. After being advised of the specific allegations that had been made against him, the Respondent gave a statement to Detective Dansky. The Respondent's statement consisted of a denial of all allegations of misconduct. After taking the Respondent's statement, Detective Dansky offered the Respondent the option of furnishing a urine sample for drug testing in order to resolve the issue. The Respondent voluntarily agreed to provide a urine sample. Detective Dansky initiated the drug testing process by asking the Respondent if he had been using any drugs that might show up on the test. The Respondent stated that he had not used any drugs. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent provided a urine sample. The sample was collected under circumstances which verified that the sample was actually provided by the Respondent and the sample was promptly sealed in a manner which made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. The sample was also given a unique identifying number. The urine sample was properly protected until it was turned over to the forensic laboratory, where it was received in good condition with no evidence of tampering. At the laboratory the Respondent's urine sample was kept in a secure manner during the testing process. At the laboratory, adequate procedures were used to ensure that the Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the sample had not been tampered with. A portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted to an immunoassay screening analysis. The screen analysis indicated the presumptive presence of benzoyleconine, a unique metabolite of cocaine. Following the screen analysis, a second portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted for analysis by means of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, which is the most reliable and accurate method for confirmatory drug testing. The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of the Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of benzoyleconine in a concentration of 4903.5 nanograms per milliliter. That concentration of benzoyleconine is consistent with, and indicative of, the Respondent's voluntary ingestion of cocaine within a time frame of approximately one to four days prior to the collection of the urine sample. The Respondent's positive drug test results were received by the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department on August 15, 1989. On that date, Detective Dansky again met with the Respondent. Detective Dansky told the Respondent that the Respondent's urine sample had been confirmed positive for cocaine. The Respondent told Detective Dansky that he does not do things like that and that it could not be him. 1/ As a result of the positive drug test results, the Respondent was suspended and ultimately terminated from his position as a correctional officer sergeant with the Broward County Sheriff's Department. At the time of his suspension, the Respondent had worked for the Broward County Sheriff's Department for approximately nine and a half years. Prior to August of 1989, the Respondent had an excellent work record with the Broward County Sheriff's Department.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and revoking the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 May, 1991.
