Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing the following facts were found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A", private investigative agency license Number GA 0002275 and a Class "C", private investigator license number GC 0001218. Respondent has been actively engaged as a private investigator in the Daytona Beach/Volusia County area of the State of Florida for over 25 years. A substantial portion of Respondent's activities as a investigator, are performed for attorneys representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants who employ the Respondent to investigate accidents, locate and question witnesses, photograph vehicles and sites, serve subpoenas for trial and deposition, and on occasion to perform surveillance. Records of the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Florida, reflect that Respondent was arrested on September 9, 1982 by the Ormond Beach, Florida, Police Department and charged with Attempted Murder. The State Attorney For The Seventh Judicial Circuit, by Information dated September 22, 1982, charged the Respondent with Attempted First Degree Murder and Aggravated Battery. By Order of August 10, 1982, the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, accepted the Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Aggravated Battery, a Second Degree Felony. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of 5 years. Respondent has no previous criminal record, although once arrested in 1974 on a complaint that was Nolle Prosequi by the State of Florida as a case of mistaken identity. Respondent's testimony that he was aware of only 1 complaint to the Department against him as a private investigator and that that complaint was disposed of as "unfound" went unrebutted. The circumstances that led up to Respondent's arrest on September 9, 1982 were domestic in nature: The Respondent objected to a relationship that had developed between his 12-year-old daughter, Vicky, an eighth grade student, and Thomas Parker (Parker) a 17-year-old boy about a year before the shooting incident on September 9, 1982. The Respondent came to disapprove of Parker because of Respondent's view that Parker was too old for his daughter, did not go to work or school, had no parental supervision or discipline, and was of dubious character and reputation. Respondent's efforts to terminate the relationship were frustrated. Respondent became convinced that Parker had introduced his daughter to sex, alcohol and the use of marijuana and other drugs. Respondent forbade his daughter from seeing Parker but the relationship continued and caused friction and tension within the family. Within a year, Vicky went from an "A" student to a "drop-out". Respondent sought advice and assistance from friends and public officials in regard to terminating this relationship but to no avail. Vicky was sent to live with Respondent's son in another part of the state but was brought back home when Parker began to pose a threat to the tranquility of the son's home. During the evening of September 8, 1982, Respondent and his wife, Louise Kinney, discovered that Vicky was missing from her bedroom. Respondent proceeded to search for Vicky but to no avail. Respondent reported this to the Ormond Beach Police Department because he thought Vicky had run away and was in the accompany of Parker. Sometime between 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m on September 9, 1982, Respondent heard someone at Vicky's bedroom window and went outside to "check it out" with a .357 magnum pistol, a metal baseball bat and a flashlight. Respondent found Parker and a friend helping Vicky into her bedroom window. When Parker and his friend saw Respondent they ran and Respondent gave chase. While chasing Parker, Respondent tripped over a vent pipe to a storage tank and the pistol discharged hitting Parker in the lower back. Respondent's testimony that he did not intend to shoot Parker and that the shooting was accidental went unrebutted. These comments are consistent with Respondent's explanation to the police officers called to the scene of the shooting and consistent with his comments to Dr. Barnard, a psychiatrist. Respondent's testimony that it was his intent to only hold Parker at the scene for the police so that Respondent could charge Parker with trespassing and possibly relieve a bad situation at home went unrebutted. Neither Parker nor his friend were armed. While Dr. Barnard's report indicates that Respondent was legally sane and competent at the time of the shooting, the testimony of Dr. Maximo Hancock, a psychiatrist and Dr. Barnard's initial and supplemental reports indicate that Respondent was under a tremendous emotional strain that could have resulted in Respondent reacting without knowing what he was doing at the time. Parker has brought a civil suit against Respondent for damages predicated in the part upon allegations that Respondent's action constituted negligence in a deliberate assault or battery. Respondent homeowner's insurance carrier which insured Respondent for negligence but not for deliberate and willful acts, has "accepted the risk" and is furnishing Respondent with legal defense in this civil litigation. Of the 10 witnesses to testify for Respondent, 8 of them were attorneys that had known Respondent for a period of time and had employed Respondent before and after the shooting incident to perform those services listed in paragraph 2 above. The general consensus of these witnesses was that the Respondent enjoyed an excellent reputation as an investigator for skill and competency, trustworthiness and high ethical standards, and for pursuit of his investigative duties without breach of the peace. None of these witnesses expressed any reservation or hesitancy about continuing to use Respondent's services because of any propensity toward violence. These witnesses viewed the shooting incident of which all were aware, as an isolated personal matter unrelated to and outside the scope of his activities as an investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of the violations as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State LL 10, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry P. Duffett 120 E. Granada Boulevard Post Office Box 2633 Ormond Beach, Florida 32075 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1985. =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner satisfies the "experience or training" requirement to obtain a Class "C" private investigator's license.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 1989, Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Included in that application, Petitioner related that he was employed by Austin Private Security Specialists of Austin, Texas as a security officer-undercover investigator during the period from September, 1985 until July, 1987. During his employment with Austin private Security Specialists (Austin), approximately 60% of Petitioner's job duties included investigative work and the remaining 40% was in security related work. Respondent did not credit Petitioner's investigative experience which he claims based on his employment at Austin; however, he was credited with nine months security experience based on his employment at Austin. Respondent' denied Petitioner's claim for investigative experience in Texas based on its determination that Petitioner was not in compliance with Texas regulations while he was employed at Austin. Petitioner also claimed experience for employment with Wackenhut Company of Tampa during the period February 28, 1989 through July 28, 1989. At Wackenhut, Respondent was employed as a private investigator intern. At Wackenhut, Petitioner worked under the sponsorship of Robert Crane, private investigator and successfully completed his work for Wackenhut during Crane's sponsorship. Petitioner was credited with five months investigative experience for his employment at Wackenhut. A review of Petitioner's relevant personnel records from Texas indicates that Petitioner was registered as a commissioned security guard from October 29, 1985 until September 4, 1986. Petitioner was registered as being employed in security sales from September 4, 1986 until September 30, 1987. Petitioner was never registered as an investigator with Austin or any other Texas company. In Texas, to properly perform investigative work, an applicant, as Petitioner, must either hold a private investigator's license or be registered under a qualifying company's license as doing investigative work for the company to be in compliance with state regulations. Section 35 of Texas article 4413(29 dd) and Sections 35 and 36A, Rules and Regulations of the Texas Board of Private Investigators. Petitioner was not otherwise exempt from licensure in Texas as he failed to demonstrate that he was employed exclusively as an undercover agent during the period for which he claims experience based on his Texas employment. Respondent has a written policy of not crediting experience or training without required licensure or registration as it is difficult to verify such experience without licensure and it is practically impossible to determine whether the applicant has complied with applicable law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a class "C" private investigator's license. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol D. Roberson 1714 Old Village Way Oldsmar, FL 34677 Henry D. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mailstation #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of fraud or deceit in the practice of activities regulated under Chapter 493 and knowingly violating a statutory prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm in the course of business regulated by Chapter 493.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, a Class "C" Private Investigator License, and a Class "PD" Proprietary Security Officer License. By final order entered December 8, 1992, Petitioner suspended Respondent's Class "A" and "C" licenses for one year for unlawfully intercepting oral communications. The final order also imposes an administrative fine of $1000 for this violation. In August, 1991, Respondent was retained by a client to perform an asset check of another person. Respondent did not perform the work to the client's satisfaction, so the client filed a complaint with Petitioner. On September 17, 1991, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent at his office to conduct an interview. When the investigator asked to see Respondent's file on the case, he went to his filing cabinet, pulled out a drawer, and exclaimed that the file was missing. The investigator asked what happened, and Respondent said that someone must have stolen the file. The investigator advised Respondent that, if so, he should report the theft to the police. Respondent did report the theft to the police. In so doing, he made a false report to the police. The file was not missing or stolen; Respondent was trying to obstruct the investigation into the complaint that the client had made against him. When requested to visit the police station for an interview in November, 1991, Respondent wore his handgun in a shoulder holster under his jacket. The evidence is unclear as to the status of Respondent's Class "C" license at the time of the interview at the police department. There is some evidence that it had expired due to nonrenewal, but Respondent also testified that he had already mailed a check and the paperwork necessary for the renewal. However, Respondent may be presumed to be aware that even a current Class "C" license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed firearm into a police station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order dismissing Count II, finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(f), issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000. ENTERED on September 24, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on September 24, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attorney Henri C. Cawthon Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank J. Lanzillo 520 - 12 Street West, #203 Bradenton, Florida 32405
The Issue The issue in case number 94-6750 is whether Respondent's Class "A" private investigative agency license should be disciplined. The issue in case number 95-1084S is whether Respondent's application for a Class "C" license should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is responsible for, among other things, the licensing of privateinvestigators and private investigative agencies in the State of Florida. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the Division may issue, pursuant to Section 493.611, Florida Statutes, the following classes of licenses: Class "C": private investigator; Class "CC": private investigator intern; and Class "A": private investigative agency. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Keith P. Acuff, was licensed by the Division as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff holds a Class "CC" license from the Division. Mr. Acuff is also the owner of a private investigative agency known as Chatoyant Executive Protection and Investigative Services (hereinafter referred to as "Chatoyant"). Mr. Acuff holds a Class "A" license from the Division for Chatoyant. License Requirements. In order to qualify for a Class "C" license, an individual must operate for a minimum of twenty-four months as a private investigator intern. Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. During those twenty-four months, the intern must be sponsored and supervised by an individual holding a Class "C" license. See Sections 493.6101(11) and 493.6116, Florida Statutes. Anyone, regardless of licensure, may hold a Class "A" license. In order for the business to operate as a private investigative agency, however, the agency must be managed by a person holding a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Investigatory Experience. Mr. Acuff first received his Class "CC" license in July of 1990. In October of 1994 Mr. Acuff applied for a Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division denied the application based upon its conclusion that Mr. Acuff had failed to verify that he had accrued twenty-four months of sponsored service as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff was first employed by Don Hubbard Investigations. Mr. Acuff had not claimed, nor does the evidence support a finding, that he is entitled to any time toward a Class "C" license for his employment with Don Hubbard Investigations. From the middle of September, 1990, until December, 1991, Mr. Acuff was employed by The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at The Brown Group was Steve Brown. The Division was able to verify from documentation submitted by Mr. Brown that Mr. Acuff was entitled to 12 months of investigatory work while employed at The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 12 months credit for his employment with The Brown Group. Although Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 15 months under Mr. Brown's sponsorship, he offered no proof from Mr. Brown to substantiate his testimony. From December 15, 1991, to February 15, 1992, Mr. Acuff was employed by Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at Intercontinental Detective Agency was Sean Mulholland. The Division was able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed investigatory duties for Mr. Mulholland for 1 month. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 1 month credit for his employment with Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Mulholland's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Mulholland to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff's testimony that he submitted a Sponsorship Term Addendum completed by Mr. Mulholland to the Division was not credible and, even if it had been credible, was insufficient to constitute substantiation from Mr. Mulholland of Mr. Acuff's work for him. Mr. Acuff's next investigatory work was for MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at MG Detective Agency was Michael G. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff by executing a Letter of Intent to Sponsor Private Investigator Intern on October 27, 1992. See Respondent's exhibit 2. Cynthia L. Cartwright signed the form agreeing to be an alternative sponsor. Mr. Acuff did not list any time under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship for credit on his application for Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division was not able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed any investigatory duties for Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to any credit for his employment with MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Hatcher to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff claimed on his application for Class "C" license that, upon leaving MG Detective Agency, he worked for Chatoyant from June of 1993 until August 1994. Mr. Acuff claimed that he was sponsored by Ms. Cartwright while employed for Chatoyant. Mr. Acuff also claimed that he performed investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship during the period he worked for Chatoyant for at least 3 and 1/2 months. Initially the Division planned to issue Mr. Acuff a Class "C" license. The Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was entitled to at least 11 months of sponsored investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Before the Class "C" license was issued to Mr. Acuff, however, the Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was not entitled to any sponsored time under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. The evidence, as discussed, infra, proved that Mr. Acuff is not entitled to any credit for work performed under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Acuff provided verification that he had 13 months of sponsored investigatory service. Mr. Acuff is, therefore, 11 months shy of the 24-months of experience required for a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Association with Ms. Cartwright. Mr. Acuff met Ms. Cartwright in late 1992 when he was employed briefly at MG Detective Agency. Ms. Cartwright has held a Class "C" license since 1991. Upon Mr. Acuff's termination of employment at MG Detective Agency, Ms. Cartwright was told by Mr. Acuff and a mutual friend, Carolyn Barber, that he only needed 2 or 3 months to complete the 2 years of internship required for a Class "C" license. Ms. Cartwright was asked if she would sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant for 2 or 3 months. Ms. Cartwright agreed to Mr. Acuff's request. She did so because Ms. Barber had asked her to and she felt sorry for Mr. Acuff because he had been terminated by MG Detective Agency only needing, Ms. Cartwright thought, 2 or 3 more months of sponsorship. Ms. Cartwright signed a Letter of Intent to Sponsor. The form she signed was blank. The Letter of Intent to Sponsor was subsequently completed, dated April 14, 1993 and filed with the Division. Ms. Cartwright admits she signed a blank form even though she understands that it was improper for her to do so. After agreeing to sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant, Ms. Cartwright changed her mind. She telephoned the Division's offices in Tallahassee in August of 1993 to ask how she could have her name removed as manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright was informed that her name did not appear as manager of Chatoyant. In the fall of 1993 Mr. Acuff asked Ms. Cartwright to sign a form terminating her position with Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright told Mr. Acuff she did not see why she needed to sign a form based upon what she had been told during her conversation with the Division. When Mr. Acuff suggested that the Division might have made a mistake, Ms. Cartwright agreed to sign the form. In January or February of 1994 Ms. Cartwright signed a blank copy of a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form. She gave the signed form to Ms. Barber. This form was ultimately completed, Ms. Cartwright's signature was notarized by Mr. Acuff's girlfriend, the form was dated August 30, 1994 and was then filed with the Division as part of Mr. Acuff's application for licensure. See Petitioner's exhibit 6. It was represented on Petitioner's exhibit 6 that Ms. Cartwright had sponsored Mr. Acuff from June 3, 1993 to August 26, 1994. An Employee Action Report was also filed with the Division. Petitioner's exhibit 5. The form indicates that Ms. Cartwright had resigned as manager of Chatoyant as of August 30, 1994. Ms. Cartwright did not sign the form. On October 5, 1994, Ms. Cartwright executed a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form attesting that "I did not sponsor Patrick Acuff to my knowledge. I was not aware of Intent to Sponsor." Petitioner's exhibit 7. Ms. Cartwright did not sponsor any investigatory work by Mr. Acuff or act as the manager of Chatoyant. The Administrative Complaint. During the summer of 1994, the Division's office in Jacksonville received a letter questioning how Mr. Acuff could be working for Chatoyant without an appropriate license or manager. Ms. Norma Benvenuto, an investigator for the Division, checked the Division's records and determined that there was no sponsor listed for Chatoyant. Ms. Benvenuto spoke with Mr. Acuff and asked that he come to her office. Mr. Acuff complied. Mr. Acuff informed Ms. Benvenuto that Ms. Cartwright was the sponsor of Chatoyant. When asked for documentation, Mr. Acuff was only able to produce a blank form signed by Ms. Cartwright. Ms. Benvenuto asked Mr. Acuff to bring any documentation that would support his assertion that Ms. Cartwright was the manager of Chatoyant and that they had met to discuss his work during her sponsorship of him. Ms. Benvenuto telephoned Mr. Acuff more than once to remind him to bring the documentation. Mr. Acuff failed to provide any such documentation. Ms. Benvenuto contacted Ms. Cartwright in an effort to verify Mr. Acuff's assertions. Ms. Cartwright denied ever sponsoring Mr. Acuff or every actually performing any duties as the manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright also admitted that she had initially agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff but had subsequently changed her mind. On October 20, 1995, the Division entered an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff. The Denial of Mr. Acuff's Application for a Class "C" License. By letter dated December 16, 1994, the Division notified Mr. Acuff that his application for a Class "C" license was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Division sustaining Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff in case number 94- 6750, requiring that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 and denying the application for a Class "C" license filed by Mr. Acuff or about August 30, 1994 in case number 95-1084S. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 28th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Acuff did not file a proposed order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. See 4-5. 2-3 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 22, 28 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 17 and hereby accepted. See 26 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 16 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 13, COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jeffrey Grainger, Esquire 1722 University Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Don Bell Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida. In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license. Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property. Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report. Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates' trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably. Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations. There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished. Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it. There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled. It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit. Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative. Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself. Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra. While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible. It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile. Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver $500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people. From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 & 6. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Accepted. 12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted. First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted. Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact. First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A00-01205, and a Class "C" Private Investigator Licence, Number C00-01229. Respondent has been licensed as a private investigator since 1962. During that time, there has been no disciplinary action against his licenses. On or about May 26, 1994, Leslie Dillingham hired Respondent to obtain proof of her husband's homosexuality for use in a divorce and custody proceeding. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she requested that Respondent conduct a surveillance of her husband, Mr. Dillingham, and his alleged boyfriend. She also requested that Respondent send someone who could pass as being gay to attend a meeting of an alleged support organization for homosexual men at a branch of the public library on May 28, 1994. Ms. Dillingham wanted to find out the names and addresses of the gay men who were members of the support group. Respondent represented to Ms. Dillingham that he would conduct the surveillance and that he had employees that could assist him in performing these services. He told Ms. Dillingham that he had an employee who could pass as being gay and infiltrate the organization of gay men. However, that employee was out of town. Respondent said he would contact this employee and have him attend the meeting at the library. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she expressly informed Respondent of the time constraints involved in the investigation. She needed all available information before June 7, 1994, which was the trial date for her divorce and child custody proceeding. Ms. Dillingham specifically requested an oral daily report, an itemized statement of the work done, and a written report of the outcome of Respondent's investigation. Respondent was to make his daily reports by telephone to Ms. Dillingham's home or office. Ms. Dillingham gave Respondent some pictures of her husband and his alleged boyfriend along with the tag numbers for their automobiles. She also gave Respondent a retainer in the amount of $1,500. She agreed to pay Respondent and/or his employees $40 per hour. Respondent immediately began his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's residence on May 26, 1994. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked alone and did not engage any employee or other investigator to assist him with the investigation. On May 27, 1994, Respondent continued his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's apartment and made spot checks at the home of the alleged boyfriend who lived in a different part of town. The surveillance revealed no contact between the two subjects. Respondent did not attempt to make his daily report to Ms. Dillingham. On May 28, 1994, Respondent conducted surveillance of the subjects' residences, first one and then the other, until 4:00 p.m. At that time, Respondent went to the library branch where the support group was scheduled to meet. He had been unable to arrange for his employee to infiltrate the meeting. Instead, Respondent sat outside the door of the meeting where he could hear the group planning a Memorial Day picnic. He was able to record the tag numbers of some of the men attending the meeting. Neither of the subjects attended the support group meeting. After the meeting, Respondent resumed his surveillance at the residences of Mr. Dillingham and the alleged boyfriend. They did not have any contact with each other. Again, Respondent did not attempt to contact his client to make his daily report. The next day was Sunday, May 29, 1994. Once again Respondent's surveillance of the subjects' residences was not fruitful. Respondent contacted his client, Ms. Dillingham, who directed him not to begin surveillance of the husband until after noon the next day. Ms. Dillingham did not want Respondent to conduct surveillance on the morning of May 30, 1994, because her husband would have visitation with their son during that time. Monday, May 30, 1994, was Memorial Day. Respondent's surveillance from 1:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. did not reveal any contact between the subjects. However, Respondent made his daily report to his client. Ms. Dillingham informed Respondent that she was attempting to serve her husband's male friends with subpoenas for deposition. She told Respondent that once "the cat was out of the bag," continued surveillance probably would not be useful. On May 31, 1994, Respondent was unable to locate the vehicle of the client's husband at home or at work. Spot checks throughout the day revealed no activity between the subjects. When Respondent made his daily report, Ms. Dillingham told him that depositions of her husband's friends would take place on June 2, 1994, and mediation on June 3, 1994. After this conversation, Respondent understood that the surveillance part of the investigation was complete. Ms. Dillingham's husband had visitation with their son on Wednesday evening, June 2, 1994, and on the weekend from Friday, June 3, 1994, through Sunday, June 5, 1994. Ms. Dillingham did not want surveillance conducted during visitation periods. Ms. Dillingham and her sister, Karlene Goller, tried to reach Respondent by phone several times everyday from June 1, 1994, through June 4, 1994. They were not successful. On Sunday, June 5, 1994, Respondent returned one of Ms. Dillingham's calls and agreed to meet her at her office. During the meeting, Respondent returned the photographs of Ms. Dillingham's husband and his alleged boyfriend. He also gave her the tag numbers of some of the men who attended the support group meeting at the public library. Ms. Dillingham was dissatisfied with the results of Respondent's investigation because it had not produced any evidence of her husband's homosexuality. Respondent informed Ms. Dillingham that he had worked for 60 hours on the case. Ms. Dillingham was so upset that Respondent agreed to continue the investigation without charging her for his time in excess of the $1,500 retainer. Respondent said he would visit some gay bars to determine whether anyone knew Mr. Dillingham. Respondent told Ms. Dillingham that he might have to pay someone at the gay bars to contact him if they saw Mr. Dillingham at a bar. On Monday, June 6, 1994, Respondent went to some gay bars. At a bar known as the Metro, Respondent made contact with a bartender/security man, Bruce Long, who knew most of the gay men in town. However, Mr. Long did not know Mr. Dillingham by name and verbal description. Respondent gave $50 dollars to Mr. Long and promised to furnish him with a photograph of Mr. Dillingham. In exchange for the money, Mr. Long agreed to call Respondent if he saw Mr. Dillingham. Around 11:00 p.m. on June 6, 1994, Respondent met with Ms. Dillingham and her sister at a Waffle House on Roosevelt Boulevard. She gave a photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Respondent to show to Mr. Long at the Metro. Later that night, Respondent returned to the Metro. He gave the photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Mr. Long who agreed to show it around to friends and bartenders at other gay clubs. June 7, 1994, was the date of the final hearing in Ms. Dillingham's divorce and custody proceeding. After checking with Mr. Long to find out if any of his gay friends knew Mr. Dillingham, Respondent beeped Ms. Dillingham indicating that he had no new information. Ms. Dillingham never saw Respondent's investigative report marked as Petitioner's Exhibit One (1) until an investigator from Petitioner's office showed it to her. She never received an itemized statement or bill indicating how Respondent spent her retainer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 and placing the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1996. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 except for last sentence in 3(a) of the Proposed Facts which is rejected. No persuasive evidence that Respondent and his client discussed the need to make inquiries at gay bars during the initial meeting. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10 and 16-17. Accept in Findings of Fact 17 that Respondent agreed to visit some gay bars but reject that Respondent offered to buy testimony. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry H. Wells Attorney at Law 8015 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license Number A88-00071, in the name of Orlando Detective Bureau, effective March 21, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license Number A86-00182, in the name of Tampa Bay Detective Bureau, effective August 1, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "AA" Private Investigative Branch Agency license Number AA88-00026, in the name of Highlander Detective Agency, effective August 18, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator license Number COO- 01501, effective October 20, 1987. Respondent holds a Class "E" Repossessor license Number EOQ-00103, effective August 1, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "MA" Private Investigative Agency Manager license Number MA86-00215, effective August 1, 1988. In May 1989, during an investigation of Respondent for suspected violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, Respondent failed to submit information concerning his business practices or methods regarding the repossession of a 1986 Amberjack Sea Ray boat, after proper demand by the Petitioner. In May 1989, during an investigation of Respondent for suspected violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, Respondent failed to submit information concerning his business practices or methods regarding the repossession and sale of a 1982 Chrysler New Yorker automobile, after proper demand by the Petitioner. On February 15, 1988, Respondent, his agents or employees, repossessed a 1982 Chrysler Newyorker automobile in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, on behalf of Chrysler Credit Corporation. Subsequently, Chrysler Credit Corporation authorized Respondent to sell the automobile and turn the proceeds over to them. Respondent failed to account to Chrysler Credit Corporation as to the disposition of the vehicle or the proceeds of the sale thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty on Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, and that all licenses of the Respondent be suspended for a period of one year and that he pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count; that Respondent be found guilty of misconduct on Count III, and that all licenses of the Respondent be suspended for a period of five years and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of December, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capital, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Harold W. Charlton, c/o Tampa Bay Detective Agency 8430 40th Street North Tampa, FL 33604 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Licensing issue Patricia T. Uyaan a Class "C" Private Detective License. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Patricia T. Uyaan 316 Linden Lane Orange Park, Florida 32073 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's private investigator licenses should be revoked based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail contained in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein mailed October 11, 1985. Preliminary Statement The Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, issued an Administrative Complaint to assess an Administrative fine against Respondent Arthur Letourneau, on November 9, 1984. The complaint was amended on March 5, 1985. A second amended complaint was issued on October 11, 1985 seeking revocation of Respondent's license. That complaint is the charging document which is the focus of this hearing. That document alleges as follows: Count I: The Respondent operated a private investigative agency for hire utilizing unlicensed investigators and process servers prior to becoming licensed as a Class "A" agency in violation of Sections 493.319(1)(g) and 493.304(1), Florida Statutes. Count II: The Respondent performed the services of a Private Investigator for hire without a Class "C" license in violation of Section 493.319(1)(g); Count III: Respondent has incurred and has failed to satisfy two judgments for outstanding fees for private investigations which constitute misconduct under Section 493.319(1)(f). The investigations were performed by David Tracy and Anthony Luizzi and judgments and fees are outstanding in the amount of $5,314.44 (Tracy) and $1,731.00 (Luizzi). At the hearing, Respondent's Counsel filed an ore tenus Motion for Continuance of the hearing based on a claimed lack of timely notice to prepare for the hearing. Respondent's Motion was tentatively denied. 1/ Additionally, Respondent's Counsel challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleging, inter alia that the referenced statute violated Respondent's due process in that the statute was overbroad, ambiguous and may involve the prohibition of innocuous activities. Counsel also alleged that the statutes as enacted violated Respondent's First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. Finally, Respondent's counsel averred that conduct proscribed by Section 493.301, F.S. involved conduct which although improper to be engaged in by an unlicensed investigator, is the type conduct considered permissible by attorneys utilizing the services of investigators. The undersigned lacks authority to render determinations of the alleged unconstitutionality of statutes and therefore denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material, the Petitioner, Division of Licensing is the state agency having authority and jurisdiction to license and regulate private investigators and private investigative agencies pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Arthur Leteurneau, applied for a Class "C" private investigator's license and a Class "A" private investigative agency's license on April 9, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The applied for licenses were issued to Respondent on September 21, 1984. Respondent holds Class "A" private investigative agency's license No. GA8400007 and Class "C" private investigation's license No. GC0400013, both effective September 21, 1984. Prior to his licensure in Florida, Respondent worked (in Florida) for various attorneys and law offices in Dade and Broward counties. (TR 211-225; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent performed a variety of services for said attorneys including the photographing of accident scenes, taking sworn witness statements, locating the whereabouts of witnesses and other persons and service of legal process. Additionally, while working for attorney Richard Auerbach, Respondent recruited two other individuals, Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy to assist him in the performance of investigative work. David Tracy worked with Respondent from January thru September, 1983. (TR 91-95). Respondent gave Tracy specific work assignments such as the taking of witness statements, photographing accident scenes and completing client's interview sheets. At the time Tracy performed the services, he was not licensed as a investigator or as an intern. Tracy worked without a surety bond or insurance. A dispute arose between Respondent and Tracy concerning the payment of fees for Tracy's services. Tracy filed a claim against Respondent in Circuit Court, Broward County, regarding the payment for services and on September 18, 1984, a judgment was entered in his behalf in the amount of $5,314.44 for services rendered. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, TR 100-103). That judgment was outstanding at the time of this hearing. (TR 107). Anthony Liuzzi began working with Respondent in July, 1883 and continued through September, 1983. At the time Liuzzi was a licensed investigator intern and was working under the sponsorship and insurance of the Intercounty Investigative Agency. (TR 133). Liuzzi, like Tracy, also assisted Respondent in completing work assignments including taking pictures of accident scenes, researching property ownership, interviewing clients and taking witness statements relating to personal injury claims. Like Tracy, Liuzzi also had a dispute with Respondent over fees for his services and filed a claim in Circuit Court for unpaid wages in the amount $1,731.00. Liuzzi received a judgment against Respondent in the amount climbed which was unsatisfied at the time of the hearing herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR 138- 139). Prior to his licensure, Respondent spoke to several employees employed by Petitioner concerning the requirements for and his need to obtain an investigator's license in circumstances similar to the arrangements he had with the several lawyers for whom he performed investigative work. Excluding employee Pam Pingree, Respondent was advised (by Petitioner's staff) that he was not required to be licensed by Petitioner. Ms. Pingree advised Respondent that although it was not required that he be licensed, inasmuch as he was eligible for licensure and to remove any cloud concerning the need for him to be licensed, he should apply for and obtain a license. Respondent first spoke to Petitioner's employee Seymour Klosky on August 20, 1980. During the meeting with Klosky, Respondent also net with John Bianco, an investigator employed by Petitioner. Respondent later met with Harvey Matthews, also an employee of Petitioner, who related that what he was doing was permissible based on Respondent's detailed description of the manner in which he conducted assignments for the various attorneys. Respondent met with Matthews on October 8, 1983 and on February 9, 1984. TR 207-208. During the February 9, 1984 meeting with Matthews, Respondent requested a meeting with Pam Pingree who advised him of Petitioner's policy with respect to the need for licensure to engage in the type work that he was performing for attorneys. Ms. Pingree related that it "wasn't the policy of the Department to prosecute people if they have the qualification [Respondent] had, why don't he [Respondent] get a license." (TR 208). Respondent agreed to, and in fact applied for licenses, as indicated, on April 9, 1984. Respondent's application for licensure was investigated by Petitioner's employee Richard Chauncy. Respondent was investigated by investigator Chauncy on April 10, 1984. During the investigation, Respondent offered his experiences with law firms in Dade and Broward Counties as examples of the investigative experience he had. Additionally, Respondent listed his experience as a Deputy Sheriff with the Cook County Sheriff's office in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's office from December 1970 thru July, 1979 as a Deputy Sheriff. Respondent also served as a private investigator in Chicago from the period June, 1970 to October, 1981 as a self employed private investigator on a part time basis. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that Respondent conducted private investigative work for various law firms in the Miami area during a period in which he was not licensed as a private investigator or licensed to conduct a private investigative agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Additionally, Petitioner was aware that Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy had filed complaints against Respondent based on the dispute for unpaid wages which is the subject of the amended administrative complaint filed herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Page 3, Section v.) Additionally, Liuzzi had filed with Respondent at least three complaint letters which were the subject of investigation by Petitioner, prior to the time Respondent filed his application for licensure. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). The judgments, which are the subject of the amended administrative complaint, were entered shortly (three days) prior to Respondent's licensure. The operative facts forming the basis for the issuance of the judgments involve the disputed wage claims of Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy. Respondent was qualified to hold a private investigative and private investigator's agency license based on the experience requirements set forth in Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's policy is to "take disciplinary action against an applicant who performs investigative services without a license, generally in the form of an administrative fine, and at the same time grant an otherwise qualified person a license." (TR 26-28, Testimony of Petitioner's Division Director, Shelley Bradshaw). All of the work performed by Respondent, which is the basis of the complaint filed herein, was work performed prior to Respondent's licensure either as a private investigator or a private investigative agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the Petitioner’s application for a Class “C” Private Investigator license and the application he filed as President on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner’s Class “C” Application The Petitioner applied for his Class “C” Private Investigator license on April 29, 1996. The application included the Petitioner’s Affidavit of Experience, which represented the following qualifying experience: employment with Telephonic Collections, Inc., from 3/91 to 9/93, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “credit and asset investigations for recovery of debts; did skip-tracing full-time to locate subjects for debt recovery; utilized collection network and data base information.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Collections, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment with Telephonic Info, Inc., from 9/93 to 2/96, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “administrative processing of investigation files; computer data base research and information recovery; computer preparing or reports; administrative dutys [sic] in investigation agency.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Info, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment as an auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven, Connecticut, from 1965 to 1967, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself part-time as follows: “received police training and performed assignments as required.” The Petitioner did not specify how much time was devoted to those duties. Captain Stephen D. Rubelman was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. Processing of the Petitioner’s Applications The Respondent began the process of verifying the information in the Petitioner’s Class “C” application on May 8, 1996, when it had referred the Petitioner’s fingerprint card to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for a criminal history. The Respondent subsequently began its own verification of the information in the application by telephoning Apter. On June 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned Apter, who verified the representations in the Petitioner’s application as to his experience with Telephonic Collections. Specifically, Apter stated that Telephonic Collections was a collection agency and that, for two years and five months, “100% of the applicant’s job was skiptracing [sic] individuals with delinquent accounts for the purpose of collecting the money owed to creditor.” Since this experience exceeded minimum requirements, no further verification was considered necessary, and the Respondent awaited the criminal history report from the FDLE. While the Respondent was awaiting the criminal history report from the FDLE, the Petitioner telephoned the Respondent to inquire as to the status of his application. On August 2, 1996, after being told the status, the Petitioner filed an application as president on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license. Eventually, on August 27, 1996, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history report from the FLDE, and it showed no reason not to grant the Petitioner’s applications. But earlier in August, Garry Floyd, an investigator in the Respondent’s Tampa office, learned that the Petitioner had filed applications for licensure. From prior dealings with the Petitioner and Apter, Investigator Floyd was unaware that the Petitioner had any qualifying experience. To the contrary, during a June 1994, investigation Floyd was conducting into unlicensed activities by employees of Telephonic Info, a licensed private investigation agency, the Petitioner emphatically denied that he was conducting investigations for the company. The Petitioner told Floyd that the Petitioner did not know how to conduct an investigation and did not want to know how; he said his role in the company was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd obtained a copy of the Petitioner’s applications and saw the Petitioner’s representations as to his experience with Telephonic Info as well as Telephonic Collections. Since those representations did not comport with statements the Petitioner made to Floyd in June 1994, and did not comport with Floyd’s understanding as to the nature of the Petitioner’s experience, Floyd recommended on August 13, 1997, that the Respondent allow him to investigate further before approving the Petitioner’s applications and issuing any licenses. During his investigation, Floyd obtained statements from three individuals thought to be former employees of Telephonic Collections to the effect that they had no knowledge of any skip- tracing or other investigative work being conducted by the Petitioner. All three—C.J. Bronstrup, Jason Gillard, and Duncan Tate—thought that the Petitioner’s role was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd also was aware that Apter’s applications for renewal of his Class “C” and Class “A” licenses had been denied due to what Floyd understood to be a felony conviction. (Although Apter’s testimony on the criminal charges against him was confusing, it would appear that he entered a plea on the felony charge, and adjudication was withheld. There apparently also were unconnected charges of perjury against him, but the disposition of those charges is not clear from Apter’s testimony.) Finally, Investigator Floyd also recalled that Apter once told Floyd that Apter thought he might have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent not credit the Petitioner with any qualifying experience from his employment with Telephonic Collections and also recommended that the representations on the application regarding that employment experience be considered fraudulent misrepresentations. When the Petitioner’s experience with Telephonic Collections was called into question, the Respondent attempted to verify the Petitioner’s experience with the City of West Haven Police Department but was unable to contact Stephen Rubelman at the telephone number given in the application. (According to the Respondent’s witness, “the phone rang off the hook.”) Then, on September 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned the City of West Haven Police Department but was informed that the Respondent’s employment there between 1965 and 1967 was too old to verify. For these reasons, on September 27, 1996, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent deny the Petitioner’s applications. On October 7, 1996, the Respondent mailed the Petitioner a letter giving notice of intent to deny the Petitioner’s applications. The letter was addressed to the Petitioner as president of INFO, Inc., at “13575 - 58 Street North, Clearwater, Florida 34620.” This mailing was returned undelivered on October 14, 1996, and the letter was returned undelivered. On October 15, 1996, the letter was re-sent in another envelope to “Post Office Box 1241, Largo, Florida 34649,” the mailing address on the Class “A” application. But apparently this time the mailing was returned for postage. The envelope was meter-stamped on October 26, and was received by the Petitioner on October 29, 1996. Verification of Petitioner’s Qualifying Experience The Petitioner did not directly dispute the testimony of Investigator Floyd as to what the Petitioner told him during Floyd’s June 1994, investigation. See Finding 5, supra. Instead, the Petitioner testified essentially that he in fact knew how to do skip-tracing and conduct investigations, having been taught and trained by Apter, and that the Petitioner had extensive experience doing skip-tracing and conducting investigations working for Telephonic Collections, which was a debt collection agency. While not directly disputing Floyd’s testimony as to what the Petitioner said to Floyd, the Petitioner alleged that Floyd may have been biased against him (due to his association with Apter) and suggested that Floyd knew or should have known that the Petitioner knew how to do investigation work because Floyd once asked the Petitioner to get some information for him and watched as the Petitioner placed a pretext call. Regardless of Floyd’s alleged bias or pertinent knowledge, it is found that Floyd accurately related what the Petitioner said to him and that the Petitioner’s purpose in making those statements was to avoid any further investigation into whether the Petitioner also was participating in unlicensed investigative activities during his employment by Telephonic Info. Even assuming that the Petitioner did skip-tracing and investigations for Telephonic Collections, it is clear from the testimony that the Petitioner did not do skip-tracing and investigations full-time, 100 percent of the time, as represented in the Class “C” application and as verified by Apter upon telephone inquiry. At final hearing, Apter testified that, when he verified the Petitioner’s experience for the Respondent on June 26, 1996, he did not mean that the Petitioner had no other duties but rather that the Petitioner did no collection work— i.e., the collection employees would take the information the Petitioner developed from his skip-tracing and asset location efforts and telephone the debtors to try to get satisfaction of the debt. Apter conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. It is the Respondent’s policy, when an applicant has employment experience in a full-time job that involves some investigative work or training in addition to other duties, to credit the applicant for a pro rata amount of qualifying experience based on the quantifiable percentage of time devoted to the investigative work or training. It could not be determined from the evidence what percentage of the Petitioner’s work at Telephonic Collections was devoted to skip-tracing and investigation work and how much was administrative. The Petitioner and Apter testified that Apter trained the Petitioner in skip-tracing and investigation work and that the Petitioner did a substantial amount of skip-tracing and investigation work from March 1991, through September 1993; but both conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. Apter did not break down the Petitioner’s time spent between the two. The Petitioner made a rough approximation that 25 percent of his time was spent on administrative matters. Sharon Jones, who worked for both Telephone Collections and Telephone Info, testified that the Petitioner did some skip-tracing work, as well as other duties, between June through September 1993, but she also could not estimate the percentage of time spent between the two. Other witnesses, including Bronstrup and Tate, were not aware that the Petitioner was doing any skip-tracing at all during the times they were working for Telephonic Collections. (Bronstrup worked there for approximately ten weeks between March and June 1993; Tate worked there from February 1993, through the time it became Telephonic Info in September 1993.) In partial response to the testimony of Bronstrup and Tate, the Petitioner suggested that it was not surprising for them not to be aware of the Petitioner’s skip-tracing and other investigative work because much of it was done at the Petitioner’s home after hours and because most of the employees were treated on a “need to know” basis. (The Petitioner also contended that Bronstrup did not spend much time at work for Telephonic Collections, as he also had another part-time job and did some personal investigation work on the side.) But even if it is true that the Petitioner did much of his skip-tracing and other investigative work at home after hours, only the Petitioner and Apter even knew about it, and the amount of time the Petitioner spent doing investigative work at home clearly was not verified. The Petitioner continues to maintain that he stopped doing any skip-tracing or investigative work after Telephonic Collections, the debt collection agency, ceased doing business and became Telephonic Info, the private investigation agency. As for the Petitioner’s experience as a part-time auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven police department, the application does not give any indication as to how much time, if any, the Petitioner spent doing investigation work or being trained in that work. The Rubelman affidavit introduced in evidence to verify his experience likewise does not give that kind of information. It only states generally that the Petitioner received training in and assisted in police work. It does not indicate that any of the training or work was in investigations. It also indicates that no records of the Petitioner’s employment exist and that Rubelman cannot reconstruct even the months the Petitioner worked, much less what the work consisted of. Although it is not clear, at final hearing it appeared that the Petitioner may have been claiming credit for work he did collecting Telephonic Info’s accounts receivable. However, the amount of any such work was not quantified. It also appeared at final hearing that the Petitioner also was claiming credit for doing background investigations on prospective employees of Telephonic Info. However, the Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of any of this work. Alleged Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation The Petitioner stated in the Affidavit of Experience in his Class “C” application that the “approximate percentage of time devoted to” the qualifying skip-tracing and investigation duties listed for his employment with Telephonic Collections from March 1991 to September 1993 was “full time.” This statement clearly was false. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner spent at least some time doing administrative work; several thought that was all the Petitioner was doing. The Petitioner conceded in his testimony at final hearing that at least 25 percent of his time was devoted to administrative work, and it is found that the actual percentage probably was much higher. Unlike Apter, the Petitioner made no attempt to explain his false representation, and it is found to be a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying both the Petitioner’s Class “C” license application and his Class “A” license application. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry P. Schlenther 12155 Meadowbrook Lane Largo, Florida 33774 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
