The Issue Whether Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing inmate visitation and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"), provides: Inmates not married may be allowed to have one single non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval. A married inmate may be allowed to have one single, non-family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval, if a pending divorce or separation of long duration can be verified and the spouse is removed from the list. [Emphasis added]. The Petitioner, a married male inmate, has made requests to have females, by whom he has had children and who have custody of those children, placed on his visiting list. The females by whom the Petitioner has children are his current wife, his former wife and a girlfriend. Those requests have been denied by the Respondent. The Petitioner has attempted to add his former girlfriend and his former mother-in-law to his visiting list. His former wife and all of his children are currently on his visiting list. His current wife was not on his visitor list because she was also incarcerated at the time of the final hearing. The Petitioner has suggested that he has been denied visitation with his children by his former wife and his current wife that he is unable to see because of his inability to have more than one female visitor. The Petitioner's former girl friend was offered a special visitor's pass which was limited to week days but, due to her employment, did not visit the Petitioner. Although the evidence proved that the application of the Challenged Rule to the Petitioner and the Petitioner's circumstances make it difficult for the Petitioner to have visitation with some of his children, the evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Rule itself bars married inmates from having visitation with minor children from other marriages or relationships. The Respondent promulgated the Challenged Rule to limit the number of female visitors a married inmate may have for the following reasons: Male inmates tend to request visitation from more females than males. Due to limited space for visitation, the increasing number of inmates at every institution and the burden placed on the staff of the correctional institutions to handle visitation, the number of visitors had to be limited. Each visitor has to have a local law enforcement background check and each visitor must be checked by staff before visitation. Visitation is generally allowed between 9 and 3 on visiting days but visitors may all show up at essentially the same time. There is limited staff to handle the checking of visitors and the supervision of the visitation area.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Donald Eugene Halpin, Richard Edward Jackson and Jeffery Lynn Fowler, are inmates under the supervision of the Respondent. Petitioners Halpin and Fowler are incarcerated at Glades Correctional Institution. Petitioner Jackson is incarcerated at Martin Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioners have challenged Rules 33-6.003, 33-6.0045 and 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rules govern transfers of inmates and custody classification of inmates. The Challenged Rules were amended by the Respondent after the Respondent enacted and applied several emergency rules governing inmate transfers and custody classification of inmates. These emergency rules were adopted during 1990 and 1991. The Petitioners have alleged that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious as applied to the Petitioners . . . ." The Petitioners have also alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because they were amended "through prohibited acts as defined in Chapter 120.54(9)(c), Fla. Stat., when the Respondent ran two emergency rules (33ER91-1 & 33ER91-2) back-to- back so that Amended Chapter 33-6, etc. (1991) could be implemented."
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 18, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. 3. In the Petition Rules "33-3.002, 33-19.006, 33-19 et. seq., 33-19.012, 33-23 et. seq." were challenged. Most of the Challenged Rules are lengthy and deal with a number of subjects. The common thread of the Challenged Rules concern medical care of inmates. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioner's frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 17, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 17. That the (Petitioner) has learned that the (Respondent) act [sic] pursuant to an invalid delegation as 33-3.002 33-19 et. seq., 233-23 et. seq. that fail to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency or employees that's inconsistant [sic] to the statutory requirements of 120.54 and 944.09. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalese", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of employees of the Respondent in allegedly releasing confidential medical information to "security staff and psychologist or and other staff or employees with criminal intent" and other medical practices of the employees of the Respondent. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rules. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rules are unconstitutional. Again, most of the Petitioner's arguments apparently concern violation of constitutional rights by the acts of employees of the Respondent as opposed to the violations of constitutional rights in the Challenged Rules. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rules are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 10, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. The Petitioner was informed that his Petition was being dismissed and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to file an amended petition. No amended petition has been filed by the Petitioner. On January 14, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its business located in Tampa, Florida. Respondent is a stated agency charged with responsibility for investigating and resolving unlawful employment practices. Its duties and powers are enumerated in Chapter 23, Florida Statutes, the Human Rights Act of 1977. 2. Respondent has adopted Rules 9D-8.06, 8.22(2), 9.03(4), and 9.03(7), Florida Administrative Code. These rules authorize Respondent to issue subpoenas, serve them by registered mail, and enforce them through judicial proceedings. The rules specifically authorize issuance, service, and enforcement of subpoenas in connection with investigations of unfair employment practices. They provide that inferences may be drawn from the failure of a person to provide requested information. . . Linda Parties filed a complaint against Petitioner with the Respondent, alleging sex discrimination by Petitioner. Based upon the complaint, Respondent initiated an investigation. It formally requested information from Petitioner on July 13, 1979. On April 7, 1981, Respondent issued a subpoena in connection with the investigation and served it by registered mail in accordance with its rules. Petitioner objected to the subpoena and has not provided the requested information. Respondent has sought to enforce the subpoena through a "Petition for Enforcement" filed in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Circuit Judge Donald O. Hartwell has entered an Order which provides: This cause came to be heard on the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena filed by the Human Development Center, Respondent. Both parties were represented by Counsel who presented argument to the court. The court being otherwise fully advised enters this its order; therefor it is, Ordered that the service of an investigatory subpoena served by certified mail pursuant to Rule 9D-8.22, Florida Administrative Code is valid service. Such service is not required to be served in accordance with Florida Statutes 48.031 or Rule 1.410(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further, Ordered that the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena is denied. It is further, Ordered that further proceedings to enforce the investigatory subpoena in this cause are stayed pending the ruling of Hearing Officer G. Steven Pfeiffer in Case No. 81-2101RX now set for hearing on October 21, 1981. Respondent has made no determination of reasonable cause to believe that Petitioner has engaged in any unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 3-12, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 8, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. 3. In the Petition Rules "33-3.001, 33-3.006, 33-3.0025, 33-22.004(3)(A), 33-22.0012 Code 3, s. 3-12, 33-29 and 33-4.001, 33-4.002" and Internal Operating Procedure Number AG-91.51 were challenged. Most of the Challenged Rules are lengthy and deal with a number of subjects. The common thread of the Challenged Rules and IOP concerns the possession of contraband and punishment therefor. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioners frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 2, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 2. That the (Respondents) Rules as 33-29 et. seq. 33- 3.006, 33-3.0025, 33-22.0012 Code 3, s 3-12 is [sic] invalid, arbitrary, capricious, vague, delegation to exceed, modify, contravenes, the specific provisions of laws [sic] implemented, citation required by 120.54(7), Florida Statutes and 944.09(1)(A). This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalese", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of employees of the Respondent in punishing the Petitioner for having contraband in his possession. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rules and the IOP. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rules or the IOP are unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rules and the IOP are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 4, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On December 23, 1991, an Amended Petition was filed by the Petitioner. The Amended Petition consolidated the Petitioner's challenges in this case and case number 90-7190R. The Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, the Petitioner includes the Department of Legal Affairs, and the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, the Respondents in case number 91-7190R as Respondents and addresses his challenge to other rules, internal operating procedures and directives of the other named Respondents challenged in case number 91-7190R. The Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rules, the IOP or the other matters challenged in the Amended Petition are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On January 14, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, 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 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Rule 33ER91-3, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority? Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, David Ansgar Nyberg, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections, at Marion Correctional Institution. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is not currently eligible for minimum custody classification even if the rules at issue did not apply to the Petitioner. Nor was the Petitioner eligible for minimum custody during the period of time that the policy challenged in case number 91-6699RX was in effect or the period of time during which the Emergency Rule applied. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Emergency Rule and Rule 33-6.0045(2)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code, establishes custody classifications for inmates. Custody classifications determine, among other things, the facility to which an inmate may be assigned and the degree of security an inmate is subjected to. Inmates are classified as minimum, medium, close or maximum custody, with minimum being the least restrictive and maximum being the most restrictive. The procedure to be followed in classifying each inmate is provided in Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule amend Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code, by adding three paragraphs, including the following pertinent paragraph challenged by the Petitioner: (g) Any inmate who has been certified as a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to ch. 917, FS shall not be assigned to minimum custody status unless they have successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program. The Emergency Rule and the proposed amendment to Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule"), include the same substantive amendments to Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule was only effective during part of 1991, prior to promulgating the Proposed Rule. Relevant Effect of the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), which is titled "mentally disordered sex offenders" provided, in pertinent part, the following: 917.14 Certifying defendant for hearing.-- The court may suspend the sentence and certify a defendant for a hearing and examination in the circuit court to determine whether the person is a mentally disordered sex offender if: The person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor for which he is currently being prosecuted, whether or not the crime is a sex offense; There is a probable cause to believe that the person is a mentally disordered sex offender; and The mental disorder has existed for at least the immediately preceding 4 months. The court may certify a person under subsection (1) on its own motion, on motion by the State Attorney, or on application by affidavit of the defendant. A "mentally disordered sex offender" is defined in Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1975), as follows: "Mentally disordered sex offender" means a person who is not insane but who has a mental disorder and is considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. Any person determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender was to be committed "to the custody of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation for care, treatment, and rehabilitation." Section 917.19, Florida Statutes (1975). The definition of a "mentally disordered sex offender" was modified in 1977. Pursuant to Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1977), a "mentally disordered sex offender" was defined as follows: A "mentally disordered sex offender" or "offender is a person who: Has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a sex offense or attempted sex offense in a current prosecution; Suffers from a nonpsychotic mental or emotional disorder, yet is competent; and Is likely to commit further sex offenses if permitted to remain at liberty. Subsequent to 1977, the classification of an offender as a mentally disordered sex offender was repealed. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule, any person who has been determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender who has NOT successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program may not be classified as minimum custody. The Statutory Authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. The specific authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule is Sections 20.315, 944.09 and 958.11, Florida Statutes. The specific laws implemented by the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule is Sections 20.315, 921.20, 944.09 and 958.11, Florida Statutes. The Respondent intends to add by technical amendment the following additional statutory authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule: Sections 944.17 and 944.1905, Florida Statutes. The Rationale for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. The immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare which the Respondent indicated justified promulgating the Emergency Rule pursuant to Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes, was set out in the Notice of Emergency Rulemaking: The rule is necessary in order to prevent convicted sex offenders, inmates certified as mentally disordered sex offenders, and aliens who are subject to deportation from being assigned minimum custody status. The department's current classification policy permits the classification of minimum custody for these inmates who, by their nature, present an extraordinary threat to public safety should they escape, or, in the case of aliens, present an inordinate escape risk because of the threat to deportation. The sex offenders being addressed are those who are or have been previously convicted of sex offenses listed in s.944.277(1), which are those sex offenses which exclude inmates from awards of provisional credits, and therefore identify them as a category of offenders who present a threat to public safety. The rule also addresses those persons certified as mentally disordered sex offenders under ch. 917 FS, who are considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. Experience has shown that one of the categories of inmates that are the greatest risk of escape are those subject to deportation, which in certain cases, would subject them to severe penalties in their native countries. Without an emergency rule, these categories of offenders could be reduced to minimum custody and permitted placement on public work squads or other outside work assignments with little or no supervision. The emergency rule presents a mechanism to ensure that these inmates are retained in a secure perimeter or under direct supervision. Although the Notice of Emergency Rulemaking indicates that there are only two inmates who are classified as mentally disordered sex offenders under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, there may be more. The number referenced in the Notice does not include former inmates who have been released, with or without further supervision, who may commit offenses in the future which could result in their return to prison. Additionally, it is possible that Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, or a similar statute, could be enacted in the future resulting in the classification of additional inmates as mentally disordered sex offenders. In fact, Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, has been repealed and then reenacted in the past. Even if there are only two inmates classified as mentally disordered sex offenders, the evidence failed to prove that the potential threat from a single inmate classified as a mentally disordered sex offender is not sufficient justification for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. Although the Respondent was aware at the time of promulgating the challenged rules that the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule would apply to the Petitioner, who is one of the inmates currently in prison who is classified as a mentally disordered sex offender, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Respondent was "out to get the Petitioner." The Petitioner failed to prove that the Petitioner adopted the Emergency Rule or the Proposed Rule only because they apply to the Petitioner. The purpose for promulgating the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule was to protect the public. By the very definition of a mentally disordered sex offender under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, persons determined to be mentally disordered sex offenders are considered likely to constitute a continuing threat. Pursuant to the definition of a mentally disordered sex offender contained in the 1975 statutes, such a person "is considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses." Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1975). As defined in the 1977 statutes, such a person "[i]s likely to commit further sex offenses if permitted to remain at liberty." Section 917.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). Persons classified as minimum custody are subject to less security. They may be placed on work programs which take them out of the institution. Allowing a person who has been determined by the courts of Florida to be likely to commit further sex offenses or to have a propensity to commit sex offenses and who have not completed programs intended to correct such tendencies, has the potential of placing the public at unnecessary risk. The Impact of the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule on the Petitioner and the Petitioner's Challenge. The Petitioner was charged with, and convicted of, first degree murder in 1975. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and was required to serve a minimum of 25 years. The Petitioner was not charged with any sex offense. Subsequent to the Petitioner's conviction, his defense attorney suggested that the Petitioner request that he be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975). The Petitioner did in fact request that he be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender. Pursuant to Section 917.14(2), Florida Statutes (1975), such a request was required to be made by "affidavit of the defendant." The Petitioner's request to be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender was granted on December 19, 1975, by then Circuit Court Judge Charles Scruggs, III. There was no requirement that a person classified as a mentally disordered sex offender in 1975 actually be convicted of having committed a sex offense. There was, however, a requirement that the sentencing judge determine that the person being classified as a mentally disordered sex offender: Have a mental disorder; and Be considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. It was not necessary under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), that it be shown that the person ever actually committed a sex offense. It was only necessary that the person show a propensity or inclination to commit a sex offense in the future. On April 1, 1976, the Petitioner was transferred from a correctional institution to the state mental hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. In March, 1980, the Petitioner was resentenced and returned to a correctional institution. Judge Scruggs recommended that the Petitioner be placed in minimum custody. The Petitioner is currently classified as medium custody. Even without the Emergency Rule or the Proposed Rule, the Petitioner has not been eligible for classification as minimum custody. Nor is the Petitioner currently eligible for minimum custody. Should the Petitioner, who has had no disciplinary reports during his seventeen years incarceration by the Respondent, otherwise become eligible for minimum custody in the future, he will not be so classified because of the Proposed Rule. In light of the fact that the Petitioner was not eligible for minimum custody during the period of time that the Emergency Rule was effective, the Emergency Rule had no impact on the Petitioner and he lacks standing to challenge the Emergency Rule. The Petitioner failed to prove that he has successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program. The Petitioner was involved in a sex offense committed against him when he was a child. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule the Petitioner will not be eligible for minimum custody because he was classified as a mentally disordered sex offender and has apparently not successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender. Nor can the Petitioner successfully complete the program since it is no longer provided. The Petitioner has alleged that the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule are invalid because they are arbitrary and capricious. The Petitioner has also alleged that the Emergency Rule is invalid because no emergency existed when it was promulgated.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses of malicious harassment, unlawful battery (two counts), and unlawful entry of a structure (two counts) as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 17, 1997. Whether Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his correctional officer's certification.
Findings Of Fact Christopher Horne (Respondent), was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 29, 1989, as a correctional officer, and was issued Correctional Certificate Number 70581. Respondent was employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office, Department of Corrections, as a correctional officer during the period of October 1, 1990, until his termination on November 14, 1997. Patricia Johnson is currently employed with the Orange County Sheriff's Department of Corrections as a correctional officer and has been employed as such for the past twelve years. She is certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer. Johnson first met Respondent in the summer of 1993 at work. They became friends and eventually began dating each other in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. This relationship continued for approximately two and a half years, until Johnson made the decision to end it. Johnson told Respondent on New Year's Eve 1995 that their relationship was over. Johnson began dating another man. When Respondent found out that she was dating someone else, he began calling her repeatedly at work and at home. Respondent continued to harass Johnson by calling her late at night and by driving repeatedly past her home at night. This behavior began in January 1996 and continued through August 1996. The Respondent used abusive language when speaking with Johnson. He threatened harm to her date, if he found her with someone. Johnson was afraid of Respondent and was afraid that he might harm her. On July 21, 1996, Respondent went to Johnson's home unannounced and knocked on her door. When Johnson opened the door and saw who it was, she told Respondent to leave. He did not; instead he pushed his way into her home, physically struggled with her, and eventually pushed her onto her bed. Respondent pinned her down with his knees and threatened her. Johnson repeatedly told him to leave her home. Respondent eventually left the house. Johnson reported Respondent's actions to the police. They documented the incident in a report. She told the police that she did not want to press charges against Respondent, but did want someone to talk to him about his actions. The police contacted Respondent and discussed the incident with him, but did not arrest him. On November 10, 1996, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Johnson received a phone call at her house from a person she believed to be her brother. The person told her that he had forgot his keys and asked to be let into the house. A short time later, there was a knock at the door. When Johnson opened the door, Respondent was standing there. He said, "Bitch let me in" and proceeded to push his way into her home. He then grabbed her hair and hit her head against the wall several times. He continued to pull her hair and push her up against the wall. She begged him to leave and told him to stop hitting her. She broke free and ran to her brother's room and started banging on the door. Her bother, Bobby Hunter, came out. Johnson told him that she wanted Respondent out of her house. Her brother asked Respondent to leave. Eventually, Respondent did leave without further physical confrontation. Johnson reported the incident to the police. After investigating the incident, the police completed a report and arrested the Respondent. Respondent was charged with burglary, battery, and aggravated stalking. Respondent pled in circuit court to the misdemeanor charge of trespass to an occupied dwelling and was placed on one- year probation. Respondent was suspended for 10 days from his employment with the Orange County Sheriff's Department of Corrections as a result of his actions involving Johnson. He was later terminated from his employment on November 14, 1997. Respondent is currently not employed as a correctional officer. Respondent's description of the events from January 1996 through August 1996 and on the night of November 10, 1996 is not credible. On December 11, 1992, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issued an official Letter of Guidance to the Respondent. This prior action by the Commission is an aggravating factor in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission find Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Warren Turner, Esquire 609 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
