Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 8, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition Rule 2-1.007, Florida Administrative Code and "[a]ny and (all) State Attorney memorandums, statements, policy, rules, directive, consistent to this practice" were challenged. The Challenged Rule deals with the issuance of Attorney General opinions. 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. The confusion is also caused by the failure of the Petitioner to actually be challenging the Challenged Rule. Although the Petitioner 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 alleged failure of the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit to take action against employees of the Department of Corrections and the failure of the Attorney General of the State of Florida to do anything about it. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rule. 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 Rule is unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule is 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 90-7189R. The Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, the Petitioner includes the Department of Corrections, the Respondent in case number 91-7189R, as a Respondent and addresses his challenge to other rules, internal operating procedures and directives of the Department of Corrections. 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 Rule or the other materials 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.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a corrections officer, has failed to maintain the qualification to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 19, 1993, as a Corrections Officer, Certification Number 136191. Respondent’s certification is active. At all times relevant, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Central Florida Reception Center. On November 5, 1994, Karen Mills was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff’s office. At the time of the event, Officer Mills had been working under cover for five years with the City/County Investigative Bureau. Officer Mills was working undercover at one o’clock on a Saturday morning posing as a prostitute on the sidewalk and parking lot located at State Road 427 and Pomosa in Sanford, Florida. On November 5, 1994, Mills approached a black male driving a Toyota car, later identified as the Respondent, Travis Long, when he stopped for a traffic light at the corner of State Road 427 and Pomosa. After idle conversation, the Respondent asked what she was doing. She advised that she was trying to make some money. He asked her if she would “take it up the ass?” She took that to mean that he wanted anal intercourse. Mills said yes and asked him how much money he was willing to pay. Respondent said $25.00. Mills said she wanted $40.00. Respondent agreed but stated that he would have to go get the money from an ATM and also that he wanted to get something to eat. He asked Mills if she wanted to go with him to get something to eat. Mills declined. Mills did not immediately arrest Respondent because she wanted to see the money to confirm that he was there to buy sex. Respondent left the area and returned 20 minutes later. Upon his return, Respondent asked Mills if she was a cop and asked her to pull up her shirt to prove that she was not carrying a recording device (a wire). Mills asked Respondent if he was a cop. He said no, and ultimately exposed his penis as a way to prove it to her. Mills asked Respondent to show her the money and kept encouraging him to do so, by saying, “You ain’t gonna pay me . . . You ain’t got no money. I just want to be sure I’m gonna get paid.” Respondent finally showed Mills the money and mouthed, without speaking, “I will pay you.” As soon as she saw the money, Mills, who was wearing a wire, gave the predetermined code. Respondent began to pull away in his vehicle but other officers pulled him over and arrested him. Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, a second degree misdemeanor, in the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, on January 5, 1995. Respondent was adjudicated guilty, and a $100 fine was imposed. Respondent’s testimony that, although he conducted himself as above stated, he did not have the intent to solicit for prostitution on the night of November 5, 1994, is not credible. Respondent was an energetic, hard-working individual. Respondent had no prior criminal or employment discipline problems prior to this incident. Respondent has continued in his current position as a corrections officer in the three years since the incident and has received above-average ratings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent's certification be SUSPENDED for a period of six months and that the Commission impose such conditions on his reinstatement as it deems reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 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 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Bardill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Rules 33ER91-1 and 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, Donald Eugene Halpin and Richard Edward Jackson, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the emergency rules at issue in this proceeding. 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 the rights of inmates, the operation and management of correctional institutions, classification of inmates and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, governs, among other things, the classification of inmates. Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, governs the classification of inmates for purposes of determining the type of custody an inmate should be subjected to. Pursuant to Rule 33-6.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, inmates may be classified in one of five custody classifications: minimum, medium-out, medium-in, close or maximum. History of Changes in Custody Grade Classification of Inmates Since 1990. In June of 1990, Donald D. Dillbeck, an inmate of the Respondent, was classified and placed in a minimum custody classification, which is the least restrictive custody classification. While outside of the institution in which he was housed and while working at a vocational center, Dillbeck escaped from custody of the Respondent and murdered a woman in the parking lot of a shopping center in Tallahassee, Florida. In response to this murder, then Governor Bob Martinez issued an executive order ordering that all medium or minimum custody classifications of capital-life felons be revoked and that all capital-life felons be classified as close custody, the second most restrictive custody classification. Governor Martinez's executive order was followed by the promulgation by the Respondent of Rule 33ER90-4, Florida Administrative Code, amending Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. Effective January 23, 1991, the Respondent promulgated Rule 33ER91-1, Florida Administrative Code, amending Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. Effective April 23, 1991, at approximately the same time that Rule 33ER91-1 expired, the Respondent promulgated Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code, amending Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, Prior to the First 1991 Emergency Rule. Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, prior to its amendment by Rule 33ER91-1, and other subsequent amendments, contained the following general provisions, pertinent to this proceeding: Section (3) contained provisions concerning the manner in which custody grades of inmates were determined; Section (4) contained provisions placing restrictions on the placement of certain inmates into the community; and Section (5) contained provisions placing restrictions on the assignments that certain inmates could be given. In general, Rule 33-6.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, provided the following: Five classes of custody were established. Rule 33-6.009(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code; An initial questionnaire and reclassification questionnaires were required to be completed for all inmates. Rule 33-6.009(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code; Inmates were awarded a numerical score as a result of the completion of the initial and reclassification questionnaires. Each inmate's custody classification was initially determined based upon this numerical score. For example, an inmate with an initial score of six or more and an inmate with a reclassification score of eight or more was classified as close custody. Rule 33-6.009(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code; If an inmate's numerical score was below the score for close custody and the inmate was not within thirty-six months of release, the inmate's custody classification had to be raised to close custody if any of a number of factors referred to as a "custody checklist" applied to the inmate. For example, an inmate serving a sentence for first or second degree murder had to be classified as close custody even if that inmate's questionnaire score was below six points (on an initial questionnaire) or below eight points (on a reclassification questionnaire). Rule 33-6.009(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; Additionally, an inmate had to be classified as close custody even if the inmate's score was below six or eight points until the minimum mandatory portion, if any, of the inmate's sentence was satisfied or the inmate was within thirty-six months of release, if the inmate was serving time for certain specified offenses. Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)4, Florida Administrative Code; An inmate's custody grade questionnaire score could also be modified upward based upon consideration of other factors specified in Rule 33- 6.009(3)(d)5, Florida Administrative Code, such as whether the inmate's primary offense had been reduced as a result of a plea bargain. Custody grade scores could be modified downward based upon the same factors but only if the custody checklist was met. Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)5, Florida Administrative Code; Finally, all custody assignments had to be reviewed and approved by the superintendent or his designee. Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)6, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, prohibited the placement of an inmate on work release or other community contract bed if the inmate met any of a number of specified factors, including conviction of 1st or 2nd degree murder (unless the inmate had completed the mandatory portion of the inmate's sentence and was within twelve months of release). Rule 33-6.009(5), Florida Administrative Code, prohibited inmates from being assigned to a road prison, vocational center, forestry camp or to a work camp not adjacent to a major institution if the inmate met any of a number of specified factors, including conviction of 1st or 2nd degree murder. Rule 33ER91-1, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1, Florida Administrative Code, amended the substance of Rule 33-6.009(3), (4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1 did not amend the five classes of custody established in Rule 33-6.009(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1 did not amend the requirement that initial and reclassification questionnaires be completed for all inmates contained in Rule 33-6.009(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1 did not amend the manner in which inmates are awarded a numerical score as a result of the completion of the initial and reclassification questionnaires. Each inmate's custody classification is still initially determined based upon this numerical score. Rule 33-6.009(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1 did amend Rule 33-6.009(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, by eliminating the requirement that the custody classification of an inmate with a grade below the score for close custody had to be raised if any of the factors on the "custody checklist" applied to the inmate. Therefore, for example, an inmate serving a sentence for first or second degree murder is not automatically classified as close custody even if that inmate's questionnaire score is below the six points (on an initial questionnaire) or below eight points (on a reclassification questionnaire). Rule 33ER91-1 also amended Rule 33-6.009(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, by eliminating the requirement that an inmate be classified as close custody even if the inmate's score was below six or eight points until the minimum mandatory portion, if any, of the inmate's sentence was satisfied or the inmate was within thirty-six months of release based upon the specified offenses formerly contained in Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)4, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-1, also amended Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)5, Florida Administrative Code. In essence, the amendment to Rule 33-6.009(3)(d)5, Florida Administrative Code, requires that the Respondent consider a number of factors to either increase or decrease an inmate's custody grade questionnaire score. Generally, all of the factors which the Respondent was required to consider under Rule 33-6.009(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and all of the factors which required close custody under Rule 33-6.009(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, must only be considered by the Respondent under the emergency rule. Rule 33ER91-1, eliminated the requirement contained in Rule 33- 6.009(3)(d)6, Florida Administrative Code, that all custody assignments be reviewed and approved by the superintendent or his designee. The superintendent of a prison is now required under the emergency rule to review and approve all modifications to the custody classification resulting from an inmate's questionnaire. Rule 33ER91-1 repealed Rule 33-6.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, and its prohibition on the placement of an inmate on work release or other community contract bed if the inmate met any of the factors specified in this portion of the rule. Finally, Rule 33ER91-1 repealed Rule 33-6.009(5), Florida Administrative Code, and its prohibition on inmates being assigned to a road prison, vocational center, forestry camp or to a work camp not adjacent to a major institution if the inmate met any of the factors specified in this portion of the rule. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirements of Rule 33ER91-1, Florida Administrative Code, are arbitrary or capricious. Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code, is for all practical purposes identical to Rule 33ER91-1, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code, was declared invalid in a Final Order entered on October 1, 1991, in Darryl James McGlamry v. Department of Corrections, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 91-2804R.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; (2) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff rule relating to effectiveness in assigned duties; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a detention deputy and has been so employed for more than 11 years. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Detention Center (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Respondent is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On April 26, 1999, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, Special Operations Division, and was a corporal supervising the booking area. In connection with that assignment, Respondent's job responsibilities included booking inmates into the Jail. One part of the booking process required that detention deputies obtain certain information from individuals taken into custody in order to complete the necessary paperwork. While the information was being obtained, inmates are instructed to stand behind a blue line on the floor. As part of the booking process, detention deputies inventory the property in the possession of an inmate and make a written record of that property and "pat down" the inmate. Following these procedures, the inmate is seen by a nurse. However, if the nurse is unavailable, the inmate is told to wait in Pre-booking Cell 4 (Cell 4). Detention Deputy Robert McQuire was also assigned to work the third shift in the booking area of the Special Operations Division on April 26, 1999. On April 26, 1999, during the third shift, Jay McMillen (McMillen) was booked into custody at the Jail on the charge of driving without a valid driver’s license. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was taken to the booking area, instructed to stand behind the blue line on the floor near the counter in the booking area, and asked for information required to complete the inmate property form. Both Respondent and McGuire participated in booking McMillen but McGuire asked the inmate most of the questions. During the booking process, McMillen cooperated with Respondent and McGuire and provided the information required to complete the booking form. Moreover, McMillen complied with orders given to him by the detention deputies. Although McMillen occasionally wandered a few feet away from the booking counter, he would immediately return to the area behind the blue line when so instructed. While being booked, McMillen never threatened either Respondent or McGuire. Furthermore, McMillen never physically resisted the actions of the detention deputies or exhibited physical violence. During the course of the booking process, Respondent undertook a routine pat down search of McMillen. As a part of that process, McMillen again complied with Respondent’s instructions to assume the appropriate position. While engaging in the pat down, some slight movement of McMillen’s leg occurred. However, at the time of this movement by McMillen, Respondent took no action to restrain McMillen. After the pat down was completed, McMillen was then told to sit on the bench in the booking area and to remove his shoes for inspection. McMillen immediately complied with this instruction. After Respondent completed the search of the shoes, he then ordered McMillen to have a seat in Cell 4. When Respondent ordered McMillen to Cell 4 to await nurse screening, McMillen complied with that order. While McMillen was walking toward Cell 4, McMillen made a single verbal statement to Respondent. The statement by McMillen was inappropriate and unnecessary. In the statement, McMillen referred to Respondent as "bitch." In response to McMillen's statement, Respondent turned from his original direction of returning to the booking counter and followed McMillen into Cell 4. It was Respondent’s intent at that time to remove McMillen from Cell 4 and to transport him to C Wing, an area used for inmates who were agitated or upset and needed a "cooling down" period. Respondent’s decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4 to the C Wing was based solely upon the tone of McMillen’s voice and was not the result of any aggressive physical act taken by McMillen or a verbal threat made by McMillen. Respondent followed McMillen into Cell 4 without the benefit of assistance from another detention deputy. In fact, prior to acting upon his decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4, Respondent did not advise McGuire or any other detention deputy of his intent or ask for assistance. Although Respondent did not advise any detention deputy that he was going into Cell 4, McGuire apparently observed Respondent proceeding toward Cell 4, and within approximately nine seconds, followed Respondent into the cell. At the time Respondent entered Cell 4 there was another inmate in the cell. Once in Cell 4, McMillen complied with Respondent’s instruction to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. However, while Respondent was handcuffing McMillen, McMillen exhibited an aggressive move toward him. As a result of McMillen's aggressive move, Respondent exercised force in restraining McMillen, engaging in an arm hold and forcing McMillen to the ground. Once on the ground, McMillen did not resist further and cooperated in the efforts of Respondent and McGuire to return him to his feet. During the process of Respondent's utilizing this force, McMillen suffered a cut over his right eye that required medical attention. McGuire then assisted Respondent in the handcuffing and transporting of McMillen. McMillen was then transported to C Wing where he was seen by a nurse, his restraints were removed, and he was left in a cell. McMillen did not resist further at that time and complied with the instructions of Respondent. Following the incident described in paragraph 16, Respondent and McGuire reported the incident as a use of force. Their incident reports were reviewed by Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Richard Leach, who approved the use of force and completed his own report. Prior to completing his report, Sergeant Leach attempted to speak with McMillen, but McMillen refused to discuss the matter with him. Sergeant Leach discussed the incident with Respondent and McGuire, but did not review the videotapes of the pre-booking area for the time period during which the incident occurred. It was later that Sergeant Leach was advised there was a problem with regard to the use of force. After reports were completed and submitted, the videotapes made in the pre-booking area of the incident were reviewed by Lieutenant Alan Harmer, pursuant to the procedures utilized at the Jail. Lieutenant Harmer also reviewed the incident reports prepared by Respondent and McGuire and the use- of-force report prepared by Sergeant Leach. Upon reviewing the tapes, Lieutenant Harmer determined that the events leading up to the use of force and the use of force itself violated Sheriff’s Office rules. As a result of Lieutenant Harmer's preliminary determination, an internal investigation was conducted by the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the referral by Lieutenant Harmer. Sworn statements were taken by investigators, including statements of Respondent, McGuire, and the inmate in Cell 4 at the time of the altercation. In his sworn statement, Respondent alleged that McMillen was verbally abusive during the course of the booking process and that he further was uncooperative and had initiated an act of possible physical resistance by moving his leg in a manner possibly designed to strike Respondent. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Administrative Review Board (Board) without conclusion or recommendation. Sergeant Leach was among the officers sitting on the Board. Although Sergeant Leach had initially approved the use of force when he reviewed the reports of Respondent and McGuire, he voted to discipline Respondent based upon his observations from the videotapes of the incident. The Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Respondent the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 067, relating to a member’s effectiveness in their assigned duties. On April 26, 1999, you unnecessarily caused a use of force by entering a cell and confronting an inmate. Further, you exposed yourself to undue risk by entering the cell without appropriate back-up. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 15 disciplinary points. As a result, Respondent was assessed 15 disciplinary points. Sheriff’s Office General Order 10-2 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point assessment of 15 points to be a minimum discipline of a written reprimand and a maximum discipline of a three-day suspension. In the instant case, Respondent was assessed the maximum discipline, a three-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Respondent in following McMillen into Cell 4 and then engaging in a physical altercation with McMillen based solely upon a single comment by McMillen, regardless of the extent to which the comment constituted a vulgar insult directed toward Respondent, did not constitute a good correctional practice. Moreover, such conduct is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of correctional officers in a volatile situation is to calm the situation and to maintain control, not to act to aggravate or to escalate the dispute or to allow the inmate to control the situation via verbal comments. Proper correctional practice would have been to allow McMillen to remain in Cell 4 for sufficient time to cool off and calm down before initiating further contact with him. Similarly, the actions of Respondent in following McMillen into the cell by himself rather than obtaining assistance prior to entering the cell, are also contrary to good correctional practice. Again, this conduct by Respondent served only to potentially escalate and aggravate the confrontation, rather than to calm the situation. Moreover, it is also good correctional practice to have two detention deputies transport an inmate. This is particularly so considering the presence of another inmate in Cell 4 at the time Respondent entered the cell. There was no need for Respondent to enter the cell with McMillen or to initiate physical contact with McMillen, and his actions are contrary to Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure File Index No. DCB 9.29 that requires that detention deputies refrain from one-on-one confrontations with inmates that may lead to physical confrontations. The actions of Respondent created a situation that led to a use of force and injury to McMillen that could have been avoided had Respondent effectively performed his duties as a detention deputy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document and upholding Respondent’s suspension for three days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
The Issue Whether the conduct of Petitioner violated the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. As a result, Respondent maintains and operates a correctional facility, commonly referred to as the Pinellas County Detention Center, or Pinellas County Jail. Petitioner is a detention deputy employed by Respondent at the Pinellas County Jail (Jail) and has been so employed for approximately fifteen years. Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioner is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On May 10, 1997, while employed as a detention deputy by the Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to the B-Wing of the South Division working on the third shift. While on break that day, Petitioner went to the booking area of the Jail to meet his wife for lunch. Petitioner's wife, an employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, was working that same shift in the booking area. When Petitioner arrived in the booking area, in addition to his wife, also present were Detention Deputies Larry Potts, Lloyd Spain, Denise Borland and Detention Lieutenant Krista Rauch. Spain and Borland were processing an individual being booked into the Jail while Potts was assisting Rice’s wife. Lieutenant Rauch was located at the booking desk in a glassed area. On May 10, 1997, at the time the events in paragraph 3 were transpiring, Mathew Robinson was being booked into the Jail. After a portion of the booking process had been completed, Robinson was seated on a bench in the booking area awaiting a routine medical screening. During this process, Robinson became disruptive and began screaming and yelling. As a result thereof, Spain attempted to calm Robinson and de- escalate his disruptive behavior. When Robinson remained uncooperative, Spain, with the assistance of Potts, took physical control of Robinson and escorted him out of the booking area through a door commonly referred to as the “blue door.” Robinson was not shackled or handcuffed. Petitioner remained in the booking area. After Spain and Potts left the booking area with Robinson, Petitioner detected the shuffling of feet in the hallway area on the other side of the blue door and he proceeded through the door to investigate. Petitioner then observed Potts and Spain with Robinson who was in a half-squatted position with his knees bent. Following behind Potts, Spain, Robinson and Petitioner, was Detention Deputy Borland who had subsequently come through the blue door into the corridor in order to photograph the inmate. As Spain and Potts continued to escort Robinson down the hall, Petitioner followed behind them at a distance until they arrived at the vestibule area at the entrance to the C- Wing. At the entrance to C-Wing, there is a control booth that protrudes into the corridor area. During this entire escort process, Robinson remained unrestricted, other than his being held by Spain and Potts. At some point prior to the incident described in paragraph 10 below, Lieutenant Rauch left the booking area and entered the hallway through the blue door. When Spain and Potts arrived at the C-Wing entrance, the gate was already open. Robinson had escalated his level of resistance by screaming, yelling, fighting, and opposing efforts to walk him through the gate. Prior to the entry of Robinson and the detention deputies into the vestibule area of C-Wing, Robinson began trying to pull away from Spain and Potts and his feet were off the floor in an attempt to break the officers’ efforts to move him forward. However, Robinson did not throw punches, strike blows, or kick. During the escalation of resistance by Robinson, Spain did not lose physical control of Robinson, although he was pulled off balance. Robinson did break away from the hold being exercised by Potts for a few seconds. Neither Potts nor Spain fell to the ground. Neither Spain nor Potts requested the assistance of Petitioner nor were they aware of Petitioner’s presence. As the struggle continued, Petitioner intervened by kicking Robinson in the buttocks. Spain and Potts then took Robinson to the ground. Petitioner assisted in restraining Robinson and escorting him into C-1 Wing. Neither Petitioner nor other deputies have been trained to kick an inmate in the buttocks as a control technique. Kicking is generally used as a technique to impair or disable an inmate. At the time Petitioner kicked Robinson, he was not attempting to impair or disable Robinson. Deputies are taught to kick as a defensive maneuver when an inmate is approaching an officer. The kicking technique generally involves striking the inmate on the side of the leg in the calf area in order to effectuate a take down or redirect the inmate to the ground. The training provided to correctional officers in the use of kicking technique limits its use to circumstances requiring a counter- move to impede a subject’s movement toward an officer. At the time that Petitioner kicked Robinson, Robinson was not coming toward Petitioner. The kicking technique utilized by Petitioner lifting his leg, bringing it to hip level, thrusting the foot forward and kicking the inmate in the buttocks, is not an appropriate defensive tactic. This is not taught as a defensive tactic because it involves striking what is commonly called a “red zone.” Red zone areas include the head, neck and spine, and groin areas. A blow to red zone areas is appropriate only in a deadly force situation because such a blow may cause serious injury or death to the person struck. It is uncontested that the struggle Robinson engaged in with Spain and Potts did not create a situation where the use of deadly force would be appropriate. On May 10, 1997, shortly after the incident in question, Borland prepared an incident report in which she made no reference to Petitioner’s kicking Robinson. Borland was questioned about the incident by Corporal Powell of the Internal Affairs Division on May 28, 1997. During this inquiry, Borland made no reference to the kicking incident. Thereafter, Borland spoke to her supervisor, Lieutenant Rauch, and expressed her discomfort with preparing a report that would implicate Petitioner in misconduct. Lieutenant Rauch instructed Borland to prepare a report reflecting what Borland had observed. Borland complied with Lieutenant Rauch’s directive and, on May 30, 1997, prepared a memorandum. In the memorandum, directed to Corporal Powell, Borland indicated that on May 10, 1997, she had observed Petitioner kick Robinson. In June 1997, Borland told Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte that she did not want to write the May 30, 1997, memorandum. However, Borland stated that Lieutenant Rauch told her that both Borland and Rauch could get in trouble if Borland failed to write the memorandum. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation regarding the incident of May 10, 1997. As part of that investigation, on June 23, 1997, the Chain-of- Command Board took a sworn statement from Petitioner. After giving his account of the events, Petitioner was asked questions regarding the incident by Corporal Powell and Sergeant R. Alphonso of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau. Prior to the questioning, Corporal Powell instructed Petitioner “to answer questions directed to you during this interview truthfully and to the best of your knowledge.” While being questioned regarding the events of May 10, 1997, Petitioner admitted that he kicked Robinson in the buttocks and that this was observed by Lieutenant Rauch. However, from his point of view, the struggle that ensued between Robinson, Potts and Spain immediately prior to the kick could not have been observed by Lieutenant Rauch. From Lieutenant Raunch’s vantage point, as seen by Petitioner, her view of that struggle had to have been obstructed by the control room. Petitioner’s perception of where Lieutenant Rauch was at the time of the struggle is not inconsistent with that of other detention deputies in the immediate vicinity at that time. In response to questions during the proceeding of June 23, 1997, Petitioner was adamant in his denial that Lieutenant Rauch did not observe the struggle that Spain and Potts had with Inmate Robinson immediately before Robinson was kicked. Throughout his interrogation, Petitioner did not waver from this position, notwithstanding statements from Sergeant Alfonso that Lieutenant Rauch’s written statement gave “the inference that she saw that struggle.” Although Petitioner had responded when asked about the discrepancy in his statement and that of Lieutenant Rauch, Sergeant Alfonso continued to question Petitioner concerning whether the lieutenant observed the struggle. Among the questions asked by Sergeant Alfonso were: “Now, are you saying that [Lieutenant Rauch’s] being untruthful, that she’s lying about this?”; “And so what you’re telling us today is that Lieutenant Rauch is lying about seeing the incident?”; and “Your opinion is that Lieutenant Rauch is a liar?” In response to these questions, Petitioner answered in the affirmative. During the course of giving his sworn statement, Petitioner was asked whether he believed that Deputy Borland “lied in her statement against him.” Petitioner was also asked whether it was his “belief that Lieutenant Rauch put Deputy Borland up to that lie.” Petitioner answered both of these questions in the affirmative. At the time Petitioner responded to these questions, he believed that he was answering truthfully. There were two reasons that Petitioner believed that Borland’s second account of the incident was inaccurate and that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland what to put in the memorandum. First, Petitioner was aware that Borland’s May 10, 1997, incident report made no reference to the kicking incident and that Borland first mentioned the kicking incident in the memorandum dated May 30, 1997. Second, Petitioner based this belief on comments made to him by his wife. According to Petitioner’s wife, Borland had told another officer, Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte, that Lieutenant Rauch directed Borland to write the memorandum. Petitioner mistakenly concluded or interpreted this comment to mean that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland specifically what to include in the memorandum. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) presented its entire investigative file to the Chain-of-Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain-of-Command Board met and, after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Petitioner the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 021, relating to the custody arrestees/prisoners, a Level Five violation; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 024, relating to insubordination, use of profanity or insulting language towards a superior officer, a Level Five violation. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations is the basis for assigning 60 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner was assessed 60 disciplinary points. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for 60 points to be from a minimum penalty of a seven-day suspension to a maximum penalty of termination. In the instant case, Petitioner was assessed a ten-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in kicking inmate Robinson did not constitute a good correctional practice, and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of a correctional officer in an altercation is to engage in defensive maneuvers and to gain control of the inmate creating the disturbance. Although correctional officers are allowed to defend themselves, kicking an inmate in the buttocks serves no correctional purpose, does not constitute the proper use of defensive tactics and is not designed to maintain control of an inmate or a situation. Kicking an arrestee or inmate in the buttocks area is not appropriate absent a situation where great bodily harm is being threatened by the inmate. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in responding to questions during the course of giving a sworn statement do not constitute insubordination. Respondent was required to answer all questions truthfully, that is the truth as he knew or perceived it to be. In the instant case, Petitioner's comments were not made voluntarily nor were they directed to Lieutenant Rauch. Instead, Petitioner's statements were made in response to questions from a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau who was investigating the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of the conduct alleged in Counts I and II of the charging document and suspending Petitioner, without pay, for eight (8) days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIED Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 B. Norris Rickey Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl 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 adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. The Challenged Rule, Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent filed Rule 33ER91-1. This emergency rule was filed by the Respondent to alleviate problems created by a high increase in the number of close custody inmates caused by changes in the Respondent's rules during 1990. Pursuant to Section 120.54(9)(c), Florida Statutes, Rule 33ER91-1 was only effective for ninety (90) days. Therefore, Rule 33ER91-1 was due to expire on or about April 24, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the Respondent filed the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule is identical in its terms to Rule 33ER91-1. The Challenged Rule should have expired on July 22, 1991. The instant challenge was instituted on May 8, 1991, before the Challenged Rule expired. The amendments to Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, filed by the Respondent on July 1, 1991, do not repeal the effect of the Challenged Rule prior to July 1, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character by pleading guilty to the felony charge of child neglect pursuant to Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Veronica A. Smith, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. She was issued Correctional Officer Certificate No. 135464 on December 11, 1992. Respondent was employed by the Lee County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer during the period September 21, 1992, through June 24, 2002. On or about June 12, 2002, Respondent was charged by Information with two counts of felony child neglect in violation of Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), by the state attorney for the Twentieth Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida. On or about May 27, 2003, Respondent, while represented by counsel and in open court, withdrew her previous plea of "not guilty" to the Information and entered a plea of guilty to one count of felony child neglect before the circuit court for Lee County, Florida, State of Florida v. Veronica Smith, Case No. 02-1878CF. Said plea was accepted and the court entered an Order Withholding Adjudication dated May 27, 2003, which withheld adjudication of guilt but placed Respondent on probation for a period of two years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Following notification of her arrest, the Lee County Sheriff's Office opened an internal affairs investigation relating to the underling charges which resulted in her termination on June 24, 2002, from her position as Bailiff Corporal with the Lee County Sheriff's Department. By pleading guilty to felony child neglect, Respondent has failed to uphold her qualifications to be a correctional officer by failing to maintain her good moral character. Although Respondent's employment record does not show any prior disciplinary violations, she has failed to produce any evidence in explanation or mitigation of the conduct which resulted in her arrest and plea before the circuit court or in her termination of her employment with the Lee County Sheriff's Office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Respondent's certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 28th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Veronica A. Smith Post Office Box 6812 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 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.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed May 28, 1986, Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) charged that Respondent, Theodore Riley (Riley), while employed as an adjuster by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Group, (USF&G), did wrongfully obtain the sum of $400 from a workmens compensation claimant to assure that USF&G would not contest the claim (Count I). The complaint further alleged that on September 16, 1985, Riley entered a plea of nolo contendere to an information charging a violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, a felony of the second degree and a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the court withheld adjudication and placed Riley on 18 months probation (Count II). The Department concluded that such conduct demonstrated, inter alia, a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance; fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or permit; and, a plea of nolo contendere to a felony involving moral turpitude. Section 626.611(7),(9) and (14), Florida Statutes. At hearing, Riley entered a plea of no contest to Count II of the Administrative Complaint in exchange for the Department's dismissal of Count I of the Administrative Complaint and the Department's agreement that the penalty imposed would be limited to a suspension of his eligibility for licensure for a period of two (2) years. While not conditioning his agreement to a two year suspension, Riley did request that the Department consider crediting the time he has been on probation against the two year suspension. The evidence shows that Riley was arrested and charged with the subject offense in March 1985, that he entered a plea of nolo contendere, that adjudication of guilt was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for 18 months commencing September 16, 1985. As a special condition of probation, Riley was ordered not to apply for an adjuster's license during the term of his probationary period. Consistent with the terms of his probation, Riley has not renewed his adjusters' license. The Department's records reflect that Riley's license was last due for renewal, but not renewed, on April 1, 1985.
