The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On June 11, 1991, Respondent filed an employment application with Florida Patrol and Security Guard Service, Inc., d/b/a Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent submitted to Maria Vilma Gonzalez, the secretary for Sunstate Security Patrol, photocopies of two documents. Respondent represented that one photocopy was of his Class D Security Officer License and that the other was a photocopy of his Class G Statewide Firearms Permit. The photocopy of the Class D license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of April 1, 1992. The photocopy of the Class G license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of March 4, 1992. Respondent began working for Sunstate Security Patrol as an armed guard on June 11, 1991, and continued that work for approximately six weeks. He left that employ to take employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent submitted the same documents to Ventura Security Services to show his licensure that he had submitted to Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent did not hold a valid Class D license or a Class G license on June 11, 1991, when he applied for employment with Sunstate Security Patrol, at any other time while he was employed by Sunstate Security Patrol, or when he applied for employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent had been issued a Class D license that expired March 4, 1988. Respondent had been issued a Class G license that expired April 1, 1988. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class D license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class G license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent held a "D" license and a "G" license. The "D" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of July 31, 1993. The "G" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of October 1, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which revokes all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether A-1 Security and Detective Agency’s Class B security agency license, and Mr. Rozzi’s Class MB security agency manager license should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, between May 5 and August 4, 1997, the Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division) was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security agencies and security agency managers in Florida. Respondent, A-1 Security and Detective Agency, Incorporated (A-1) held a Class “B” security agency license number B89-0115; and Respondent, Stephen V. Rozzi, held a Class “MB” security agency manager’s license number MB89-00186. Respondent Rozzi was President and operating manager of A-1. At some point during the period in issue, Gary Q. Floyd, an investigator with the Division, received a call from the owner of another security agency who reported a potential problem. At the time, Mr. Floyd was nearby and responded immediately to the apartment complex which belonged to a client of the individual who had called in. His review of the security logs revealed abnormal entries. Returning to the Division office, Floyd checked on the license status of the guard in question who had made the questionable entries and found that this guard was not licensed. The guard, Carmen Santiago, had applied for a class “D” license as a security guard, but because of a prior disciplinary problem out-of-state, the Division had indicated its intent to deny the license. Santiago was employed by Respondent, A-1. Coincidentally, the following morning, Respondent Rozzi came to the Division office on another matter and Floyd showed him the questioned logs. Respondent agreed that the entry was unusual, but said he had terminated Santiago from employment with A-1 as a guard on July 30, 1997, before the date of the questioned entry. Floyd asked Rozzi which guard had worked on the site on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, and on Thursday, July 31, 1997, after Santiago had been terminated. Respondent indicated the replacement guard was a Mr. Michelin. The log entries in question, which got the interest of Floyd, indicated that Santiago, who was not properly licensed as a Class “D” security guard, had served as such at the Whisper Woods Apartments. By pre-hearing stipulation dated June 10, 1998, Rozzi agreed that he had employed Santiago at Whisper Woods Apartments during the period July 30 to July 31, 1997, and that Santiago did not have the proper license at the time. Rozzi indicated at hearing that he received notice from the Division to the effect that Santiago’s application for licensure as a security guard was being denied, but claims he did not receive the notice until he picked up his mail at about 9:00 p.m., on July 31, 1997. As soon as he got that word, Rozzi claims, he called Santiago at home but was unable to reach him. Nonetheless, he left word on Santiago’s answering machine for him not to report for work that evening. In his report to the Division made previously, he indicated he had fired Santiago on July 30, 1997. At hearing Rozzi claimed he back-dated the firing to the date he received the information on the denial, which would have been July 30, not July 31, 1997. However, Rozzi had already indicated he had notified Mr. Michelin, who was scheduled to work on July 30 and 31 at Fletcher Woods Apartments, to go instead to Whisper Wood Apartments to relieve Santiago. Mr. Carter, another employee, was to take Michelin’s place at Fletcher Wood Apartments. When asked to asked to explain the inconsistencies, he could not do so. Carter, when interviewed by Floyd on August 5, 1997, as a part of the investigation, stated he did not work at Fletcher Woods Apartments that night nor has he ever worked there. Carter also indicated that when he was contacted by Rozzi shortly before August 5, 1997, Rozzi told Carter, to say, if he were asked, that he had worked at Fletcher Woods on the night of July 31, 1997. When Floyd advised Rozzi of Carter’s story, Rozzi still declined to change his version. Santiago is disqualified from licensure as a security guard in Florida because of his conviction of a felony in another state. Nonetheless, he applied for a security guard license in Florida in April or May 1997. At the time he applied, he received a temporary Class “D” license which allowed him to work pending action on the permanent license application, and he started work at A-1 as a security guard at different locations wherever he was posted. From time to time, including on July 30 and 31, 1997, he worked at Whisper Woods Apartments. On July 30, 1997, Santiago went to work at 4:00 p.m., intending to stay until relieved at the end of his shift, at 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997. At the time he went to work, he did not know that his application for licensure had been denied, nor did he know of the denial when he went to work on July 31, 1997. He claims he did not go home after work on either July 31 or early on August 1, 1997. Santiago claims he first learned of the denial when he got home later in the day on Friday, August 1, 1997, to find Floyd at his door. During the conversation he had with Floyd which followed, Floyd advised him that his license had been denied. This was the first he had heard of the denial, he claims. Santiago indicates that as soon as Floyd told him that, he left Floyd in his apartment and immediately went to his mailbox where he found the denial letter from the Division. There is some evidence to indicate that Santiago told Floyd in another interview prior to the hearing, that he had received the letter informing him of the denial on either July 30 or July 31, 1997. At hearing he claims that he was referring to a letter from the Division soliciting more information. This contention is rejected, however, since it is considered unlikely the Division would seek additional information and reject the application almost concurrently with the request. After Floyd left Santiago on August 1, 1997, Santiago immediately called Rozzi to tell him he could no longer work. Santiago claims Rozzi was upset with him when he called, claiming that he, Rozzi had tried to call Santiago a few days earlier to tell him not to go to work, but Santiago had not received the message or called him back. However, Santiago was at work at Whisper Woods Apartments from 4:00 p.m., on July 30, 1997, until 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997, and again that evening, and no one came to the job site either evening to talk with him about his status. This was, he claims, even after he told Rozzi that he, Rozzi, was going to get a letter indicating Santiago’s license was denied. Santiago claims that at no time after that notice did Rozzi terminate him or advise him he would be terminated when the letter came in. Rozzi contended at hearing that the first time he heard anything about the problem with Santiago working was on August 1, 1997, when he was in the Division office on a probation matter. It was at that time that Floyd showed him the logs from Whisper Woods Apartments and asked him about what appeared to be differences in the handwriting on them. Floyd also asked him at that time if he knew Santiago’s license was going to be denied. Rozzi said then that he had first learned of the problem on July 31, 1997. That same day, Rozzi claims, he made arrangements for someone else to cover that post so that Santiago would not be on duty, and Rozzi insists he did not know that this had not happened until the next day. Analysis of and comparison of the varied stories told by Rozzi regarding when he found out that Santiago’s license was being denied results in the conclusion that Rozzi found out on July 30, 1997. Had he not known, he would have had no reason to contact Michelin and tell him to switch duty assignments or to call Santiago and leave the message not to go to work any more. However, Michelin did not testify at the hearing, and the evidence of what he told Floyd regarding this is hearsay evidence. Even if Rozzi received the notice on July 30, 1997, as it appears, by his own admission he did not receive it until mid- evening, at a time when Santiago would have already been at work on the 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. There is no way he could have reached Santiago that evening. Knowing this, Rozzi still did not make any effort to contact Santiago by going to the work site and relieving him by taking a relief guard with him. Consequently, it is found that regardless of which day Rozzi found out about Santiago’s disqualification, he did nothing to ensure that Santiago did not serve as a security guard without a license. Merely calling Santiago and leaving a message on the answering machine is not enough. At the least, he should have gone to the site to insure Santiago was not on duty. At this initial interview, Floyd also showed Rozzi a copy of one of A-1’s invoice forms which reflected at the bottom that the firm was available to perform certain tasks which were limited to a licensed detective agency and not permitted to a security agency. Rozzi indicated that he had copied the information from an advertisement of another agency, but assured Floyd that A-1 was not doing the unauthorized work. No evidence was introduced to indicate it was, and it is so found. Rozzi agreed to remove the inappropriate language from any form or communication used by the firm immediately. He did so. On December 31, 1996, the Director of the Division of Licensing entered a Final Order in Case No. C96-00855 relating to the two Respondents herein, adopting and incorporating the terms of a Stipulation and Settlement entered into between the division and the Respondents in that case. None of the documentation submitted in connection with that case indicates what offenses were alleged to have been committed by either Respondent. The terms of the Stipulation and Settlement called for the Respondents’ licenses to be placed on probation for a period of two years, and for Respondents to pay an administrative fine of four thousand dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of employing an unlicensed employee to perform services which require the possession of a license; of advertising the business of a private investigative agency without possessing the proper license; of failing to respond truthfully to questions asked by an authorized investigator during an official investigation; and of violating the terms of probation by committing violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondents’ class “B” and Class “ MB” licenses as a security agency and security agency manager respectively, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Rayford H. Taylor, Esquire Stiles, Taylor, Grace & Smith, P.A. Post office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76) should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Benvenuti is seeking eligibility for an equivalency of training exemption from basic recruit training. Mr. Benvenuti has approximately 18 years of experience in law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service. Mr. Benvenuti was employed as a firefighter in the State of Connecticut, with the City of New London, from January 1971 to July 1979. He was also employed as a police officer in the State of Connecticut, with the Town of Waterford, from June 1977 through December 1998, when he was not on shifts with the City of New London as a firefighter. Additionally, Mr. Benvenuti was the certified Fire Marshall for the City of New London and the Acting Deputy Fire Marshall for the Town of Waterford. On January 7, 1985, Mr. Benvenuti was certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida and became a law enforcement officer with the Oakland Park Public Safety Department in Oakland Park, Florida. He voluntarily left the Oakland Park Public Safety Department on August 20, 1987, to return to Connecticut. When Mr. Benvenuti returned to Connecticut in 1987, he was re-employed by the New London Fire Department. In 1989, because of a lower back injury, he retired. Mr. Benvenuti was subsequently licensed by the State of Florida as a private investigator. He worked as a private investigator from 1991 to 2001, with a company performing investigations and surveillance. During his tenure with the company, Mr. Benvenuti received training from the United States Customs Office and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and performed airport security in Costa Rica. Mr. Benvenuti is presently the general manager of a towing company in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Among other things, he has constant contact with law enforcement officers. Mr. Benvenuti has impressive letters of recommendation. The letters of recommendation include recommendations from the Chief of Police of the Waterford Police Department and of the Oakland Park Public Safety Department, and the Fire Chief of the City of New London. During the summer of 2003, Mr. Benvenuti decided to get re-certified, as a law enforcement officer in Florida, since he had a "love" for law enforcement and after becoming aware that a friend of his had returned to school in the spring of 2003 for re-certification. Mr. Benvenuti inquired about re- certification at Broward Community College (College). The College offers the Pre-Exam Qualification Course for the Equivalency Training exam. Mr. Benvenuti was informed by the College that the class offered in July 2003 was already full and that he had to wait until the next available class was offered, which was in September 2003. In August 2003, Mr. Benvenuti forwarded his information to the College to register for the class, together with the required registration fee. The class was scheduled for September 29 through October 21, 2003. Notification of his acceptance into the class was forwarded to Mr. Benvenuti on September 2, 2003, by the College. On August 23, 2003, Mr. Benvenuti filed a completed Equivalency of Training Form with the CJSTC. On the Equivalency of Training Form, he indicated, among other things, that he was seeking certification as a law enforcement officer; that he was an inactive Florida officer; and that his prior criminal justice employment was with the Oakland Park Police Department, as a law enforcement officer from January 17, 1985 to August 20, 1987. CJSTC reviewed Mr. Benvenuti's Equivalency Training Form. By letter dated August 25, 2003, CJSTC informed Mr. Benvenuti that, due to a recent change in the law for eligibility, which took effect July 11, 2003, his eight-year break in employment made him ineligible for equivalency training and that, therefore, his Equivalency Training Form was denied. The College was not aware of the change in the law until it was re-contacted by Mr. Benvenuti regarding the denial by CJSTC. Mr. Benvenuti's qualifications are not at issue in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order denying approval of Richard A. Benvenuti's Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 2nd day of February, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security officer license (Number D93-17516) issued by the Department. McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "McRoberts") is an agency that offers security services. For approximately one year and eight months (and at all times material to the instant case), Respondent was employed as a security officer by McRoberts. He was assigned to service the Antillean Marine Shipping (hereinafter referred to as "Antillean") account. His supervisor was David Bowling. Antillean demanded that McRoberts supply security guards who spoke both English and Spanish. Respondent met this requirement, although he was not fluent in English. Respondent and all other McRoberts security officers assigned to the Antillean account were given written post orders which they were expected to obey. Respondent received his written post orders prior to April 22, 1995. These post orders included the following: Security officers are not permitted to sit in their personal vehicles during their shift. There will be NO SLEEPING on duty. Personnel found sleeping will be fired on the spot. Roving officer must make key rounds every hour. Please note: If the officer does not make rounds, he will not get paid for that time. (Important) The only thing we asked of you is to do the job you were hired for and the client will be satisfied and there will be no problems. NO SLEEPING ON POST !! Excuses will not be accepted. POST Number 1: Security officer will be responsible for front gate. All vehicles entering terminal after hours (unless management personnel) will be stopped to identify occupants. Visitors to vessels (unless visiting captain or officers) will be required to remain at front gate until crewman is located. Rover (Post Number 2) will locate crewman. On April 22, 1995, while on duty at Antillean (at Post Number 1), Respondent was sitting in his personal vehicle in violation of the post orders. Bowling observed Respondent in the vehicle and issued him a Notice of Failing Performance (which is essentially a written reprimand) for having committed this violation. The notice contained the following "comments" made by Bowling: S/O was on property in his car (laying down in the back seat). He told me that he has been doing this for a year. 1/ I told him that Morales 2/ does not allow it. He agreed w/me that he knows better. On May 26, 1995, Bowling again observed Respondent in Respondent's personal vehicle while Respondent was on duty at Antillean (at Post Number 1). This time Respondent had his eyes closed and was apparently asleep. Accordingly, Bowling issued Respondent another Notice of Failing Performance, which contained the following "comments" made by Bowling: I arrived at 0515. C. Figueroa was inside his car asleep at Post 1. In accordance with McRoberts' written policy, Respondent was docked four hours pay for having been asleep while on duty. Respondent was angry at Bowling for having issued him the Notice of Failing Performance that had resulted in this loss of pay. On June 9, 1995, when Bowling approached Respondent and asked him to sign a log sheet, Respondent vented his anger by yelling at Bowling. Respondent accused Bowling of taking food out of the mouths of Respondent's children. Respondent then threatened Bowling by telling Bowling that he would see Bowling "on the streets" and that Bowling was not "going to live much longer." 3/ While making these threats, Respondent came close to, but did not touch, Bowling. He had no intention of actually harming Bowling, but Bowling nonetheless reasonably feared for his safety. Another supervisor was called to the scene and escorted Respondent away. Bowling prepared and submitted a written report describing the incident. Respondent's employment with McRoberts was subsequently terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the three violations of subsection (1)(f) of Section 493.6118, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by suspending his license for a period of two months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1996.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of an alleged violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by sleeping while on duty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds a Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D92-08606, issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective June 2, 1994. During September and October of 1994, Motivated Security provided security services to Shurgard Storage, located at 1650 West Oakland Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 30, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a security officer by Motivated Security. On that date the Respondent's assigned post with Motivated Security was at the Shurgard Storage premises described above. On that date, the Respondent was assigned to the 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. At approximately 11:15 p.m. on September 30, 1994, while the Respondent was on duty at the post described above, the Respondent was sound asleep in a golf cart for a period of at least one-half hour.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case finding that the Respondent committed the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a six-month suspension of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner. Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. (All of these proposed details are essentially correct; it is simply not necessary to repeat them.) Findings submitted by Respondent. (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Gerald Brown 3551 N.W. 41st Street Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33309 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact As Needed Temps, Inc., Respondent, provides temporary employees to various businesses. Respondent is not licensed under Chapter 493. Respondent Mary E. Carter is president of Respondent. She is also the director of operations for SOS Security, Inc., whose principal place of business is at the same location as that of Respondent. SOS Security, Inc. holds a Class "B" license. In August, 1987, David Christy, who was a drywall laborer, was working temporary jobs that Respondent had found for him. On August 8 or 9, 1988, Respondent assigned him to SOS Security, Inc., which placed Mr. Christy as a security guard at a local bicycle racetrack. While working as a security guard, Mr. Christy wore the guard uniform of SOS Security, Inc. Mr. Christy was not a licensed security guard. SOS Security, Inc., which billed its customer for the security service, paid Respondent for Mr. Christy's services, and Respondent paid Mr. Christy. At least one other individual entered into a similar arrangement with Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. Willy Dorsey, whose security guard license had expired in 1986, was paid by Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. at different times for security work that he performed during an unspecified year. These incidents were not isolated. Respondent invoiced SOS Security, Inc. a total of over $13,000 in three invoices from March 20, 1987, through May 8, 1987, for "providing guard service."
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1402 1-2. Rejected as not finding of fact. 3-10. Rejected as recitation of evidence and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mary E. Carter President As Needed Temps, Inc. 6239 Edgewater Drive Suite N-5 Orlando, Florida 32810 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the documentary evidence received, the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 18, 1982, Mr. General G. Foreman, Petitioner herein, was advised that his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses had been denied based on "fraud or willful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license." Chapter 493.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner timely applied for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, concerning the denial of his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses by the Division of Licensing. 1/ Documentary evidence herein reveals that the Petitioner has been arrested ten times during the period April, 1950 through May, 1982. On Petitioner's application filed during approximately July, 1982, he listed two arrests during the period March, 1955 through approximately November, 1970. Petitioner listed (on the subject application) a trespassing charge which occurred during April, 1950, the outcome of which resulted in a conviction, and during November, 1969 or 1970, a rape charge which was "thrown out, dismissed." In the processing of applications for guard licenses, the Respondent conducts background investigations through fingerprint checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other local law enforcement agencies. The Respondent reviewed a "rap" sheet from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and based on a consideration of the ten (10) occasions which the Petitioner had been arrested, an administrative determination was made that the Petitioner failed to fully disclose arrests. For that reason, Petitioner's application for the above-referred guard licenses was denied. (Testimony of Debbie Richards, Respondent's guard license application investigator). The Petitioner listed the tow charges which "bears" on his mind and the other arrests were not listed since they had no "bearing on his mind." Petitioner contends that he made no effort to "hide" anything. Further, Petitioner related that he, to this date, is unable to recall, with any specificity, the exact number of times that he has been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for statewide Class "D" and "G" security guard licenses. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for a waiver from a rule which would allow her to reactivate her law enforcement certification without further training or examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Zoe Gail McLendon, whose correctional officer and law enforcement certifications became inactive in October 1999, seeks a waiver from the requirements of Rule 11B-27.0026(2)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that in order for her to activate her certifications, Petitioner must successfully complete refresher training courses and pass certification examinations in each discipline. If the waiver is approved, Petitioner intends to activate her law enforcement certification and seek employment with the Citrus County Sheriff's Office as an auxilliary deputy sheriff. Without reaching the merits of her request, Respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), rendered a preliminary decision on May 3, 2000, denying Petitioner's request on the ground that she was actually seeking a waiver of a statute, which is expressly forbidden by Section 120.542(1), Florida Statutes (1999). Petitioner was first certified as a law enforcement officer on March 24, 1987, having been issued Law Enforcement Certification No. 66303. She is also certified as a correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Officer Certification No. 66304 on May 8, 1984. From December 16, 1983, until October 1, 1995, Petitioner was employed by the Citrus County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer at the Citrus County Detention Facility. When the position was privatized on October 1, 1995, she continued to work in the same position for Correctional Corporations of America until October 23, 1995, when she voluntarily resigned. She has not worked with a law enforcement agency since that time. Under Section 943.1395(3), Florida Statutes (1999), if a certified officer is separated from employment and is not re- employed by a law enforcement agency within four years after the date of separation, the officer must meet the minimum qualifications for certification, including any retraining required by Commission rule. The purpose of such retraining is to bring the officer's skills up-to-date after having been inactive over the prior four-year period. Rule 11B-27.0026(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, implements the foregoing statute and provides that a person seeking to reactivate a law enforcement certification must take a 92-hour certification examination refresher course and a high- liability training course (including defensive tactics, firearms, and driving), and successfully complete the state certification examination. Therefore, Petitioner had to be re-employed by a law enforcement agency no later than October 23, 1999, or be subject to these additional training and examination requirements. Petitioner acknowledges that she was aware of this requirement. In addition to the foregoing requirements, Petitioner was also required to complete forty hours of mandatory retraining as a correctional officer by June 30, 1997, and a similar number of hours of mandatory retraining as a law enforcement officer by June 30, 1999. In May 1999, Petitioner spoke by telephone with Bonnie Miller (Miller), human resource director for the Citrus County Sheriff's Office, concerning possible employment as an auxilliary deputy. Petitioner explained that she needed to complete her mandatory retraining by June 30, 2000, and to be re-employed before October 23, 1999, in order to keep her law enforcement certification from expiring. Miller told Petitioner that any application she filed would be considered, but that she should speak with Sergeant Vern Blevins (Blevins), the training officer, who was more familiar with the mandatory retraining requirements. Petitioner then telephoned Blevins to inquire whether her recent graduation from St. Leo College with a degree in Criminal Justice would satisfy the mandatory retraining requirement. Blevins told Petitioner that he did not know if the degree would satisfy the domestic violence, human diversity, and juvenile sexual offender portions of the training requirement. He also told her that the Sheriff's Office had no in-house training courses available before June 30, 1999, and he referred her to several nearby schools that offered such training, including the Withlacoochee Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech Center) and a community college. On a later undisclosed date, Petitioner spoke with an instructor named Eva Brown at the Vo-Tech Center and says Brown advised her to make an inquiry about retraining with FDLE's office in Tallahassee. On October 11, 1999, or less than two weeks before her certificates became inactive, Petitioner telephoned Brenda Harp in the FDLE's records section and left a message (and two contact telephone numbers) indicating that she needed a question answered. Another record sections employee, Ms. Murozzi, attempted to return the call the same day but was unable to reach Petitioner at either of the two telephone numbers given. Efforts to reach Petitioner the following day were also unsuccessful. On October 22, 1999, or the day before her law enforcement certification became inactive, Petitioner again telephoned the Commission and spoke for about an hour with Murozzi concerning her situation. Petitioner was told essentially the same thing that she already knew - that her certification would expire the following day since she had not completed the mandatory retraining or become employed by a law enforcement agency. A suggestion was made by Murozzi that perhaps Petitioner might seek a waiver from the Commission's rule. This proceeding followed. While it is true that a strict application of the rule will obviously create a substantial hardship on Petitioner, the application of the rule will not affect Petitioner in a manner significantly different from the way it affects other similarly situated persons who are subject to the rule. Indeed, the evidence shows that "several thousand" individuals in the same situation as Petitioner have been required to undergo the very same training and examination requirements that Petitioner seeks to have waived. This indicates rather clearly that Petitioner's circumstances are not unusual, and that thousands of officers have found themselves in the same situation. At the same time, Petitioner cannot satisfy the purpose of the underlying statute [Section 943.1395(3), Florida Statutes (1999)] by any other means. In other words, without the retraining and examination required by the rule, Petitioner's law enforcement skills cannot be brought up-to-date. Although not germane to the waiver issue, at hearing Petitioner contended that the Commission had the responsibility to timely notify her before October 1999 of all requirements that she had to satisfy in order to keep her certificates active. State law provides, however, that the local employing agency (rather than the Commission or FDLE) has this duty. If an officer is unemployed, like Petitioner was, then the responsibility rests upon the individual to ascertain that information. This is because there are "a couple of hundred thousand or more inactive officers" at any given time, and the Commission neither has the statutory duty nor the computer capability to keep track of certification requirements for that number of inactive officers and to relay that information to each inactive officer. At hearing, Petitioner also took the position that because the Florida Statutes provide for a waiver of rules under certain circumstances, she is automatically entitled to one. This contention has been found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a waiver from the requirements of Rule 11B-27.0026(2)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 7th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowrey, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael R. Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Zoe Gail McLendon Post Office Box 842 Dunnellon, Florida 34430 Shehla A. Milliron, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
