The Issue Whether or not the Department of Revenue has accurately and appropriately assessed Petitioner tax, penalty, and interest for unlawful production of marijuana.
Findings Of Fact During 1988, Petitioner cultivated a patch of marijuana located in abandoned phosphate pits in Loncala, northwest Marion County. On or about September 16, 1988 Investigator Glenn Hurst of the Ocala Police Department discovered and seized the marijuana referred to above. The marijuana seized by Officer Hurst ranged in height from approximately twelve to fourteen feet. The marijuana seized covered a tract of four acres within the above- described land. The seized marijuana when weighed by Officer Hurst weighed 2,910 pounds. The marijuana, when seized, was cut off at the base of each plant with a machete so that the roots were not seized with the plants themselves. The property where the marijuana was seized was under lease to one Sammy Long of Sumter County. At the time of seizure of the subject marijuana, the property under lease to Sammy Long was owned by one Stanley Cowherd of Planters Boulevard, Boca Raton. The property under lease to Sammy Long was being utilized by him for the grazing of cattle. Fred Brown, a longtime friend of Petitioner and of Sammy Long, assisted Petitioner in the cultivation of the subject marijuana. Kim Nixon, or Kim Mixon, was also involved in the cultivation of the subject marijuana with Petitioner and Fred Brown. In early August of 1988, Fred Brown moved a small trailer onto the Cowherd/Long property and lived in it during August and during the fall. The trailer was located approximately a mile from the marijuana patch. There were two electric meters on the property. One of the electric meters served a well pump used to pump water into a cattle trough. The meter and pole were located within several feet of Brown's trailer. The meter was already active when Brown brought in his trailer. The other electric meter and pole were located close to the marijuana patch. The meter served a pump for watering the marijuana patch. The electric meter near the patch had been inactive until March 30, 1988 when Petitioner applied for an electric meter from the Sumter Electric Cooperative (SEC). Petitioner did not have any cattle grazing on the subject property either before or after he applied for the meter. Fred Brown did not have any cattle grazing on the subject property either before or after Petitioner applied for the electric meter. When Officer Hurst arrived at the marijuana patch on September 16, 1988, he found that the meter Petitioner activated served a pump which was connected to an underground sprinkler system. The underground sprinkler system was located within the subject marijuana patch. On the same date, Officer Hurst found an old water trough near the meter activated by Petitioner, but the trough water was stagnant. Thus, Petitioner had not used the meter to fill the trough near the marijuana patch. Petitioner's fingerprints were found on the original of the electric meter application. The fingerprints of Fred Brown were also found on the original of the same application. On April 26, 1986, Petitioner was arrested for cocaine possession. Fred Brown was arrested on August 15, 1985 for possession of marijuana over 20 grams. Petitioner had hunted doves during the 1980's on the Cowherd/Long property and was familiar with the property prior to the September 1988 seizure of the subject marijuana. Fred Brown had also hunted and been familiar with the same property prior to the September 1988 seizure. Petitioner was responsible for cultivating the subject marijuana seized on September 16, 1988 by Officer Hurst. Pursuant to Section 212.0505 F.S., the estimated retail value of the subject marijuana is $244,300.00 as stated on the Revised Assessment dated March 27, 1990, which was introduced as the Department of Revenue's sole exhibit. The Revised Assessment was sent to Petitioner's former attorney, Ed Scott, on March 27, 1990 and received by him on March 30, 1990. The retail price estimated by the Respondent was based upon 12% of the total marijuana weight of 2,910 pounds. The factor of 12% represented that portion of the marijuana plants which is considered, by the Department, as usable for consumption after processing of the plants. The Revised Assessment is mathematically correct. The Revised Assessment is legally valid. Per the Revised Assessment, the 20% tax was imposed upon the estimated retail value to arrive at a base tax of $48,860.00. Per the testimony of Kevin Jackson, the total amount of tax owed by Petitioner to the Department of Revenue amounts to $94,450.42, including penalties and interest, as of March 27, 1990. No surcharge was applicable in this case. Interest on the above amount continues to accrue at a rate of $16.06 per day, making the total as of the date of formal hearing $100,215.96. (TR-12- 13) The Revised Assessment is prima facie correct in these proceedings. It is noted that all of Petitioner's "admissions," upon which many of the foregoing findings of fact were based, were couched in terms of "marijuana," which is not named in any applicable statute. (The genus "cannabis" is defined at Section 893.02 F.S. "Cannabis" is the material to be taxed under Section 212.0505(1) F.S., which statute incorporates Section 893.02 F.S. by reference.) No evidence was presented to establish that "marijuana" and "cannabis" are the same substance and the Department of Revenue made no request to officially recognize that they are one and the same. However, because of Petitioner's admissions to the prima facie correctness of the Revised Assessment, its mathematical correctness, and its legal validity against him, no further findings with regard to the nature of marijuana are necessary.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order upholding the Revised Assessment, assessing the Petitioner $100,215.96 as of the date of formal hearing plus statutory interest continuing to accrue from date of formal hearing. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 14th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1589 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner submitted no PFOF. Respondent's PFOF: 1-37 Accepted as modified to more closely reflect the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Those matters not supported by the record have been rejected as contrary to the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee R. Rohe Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Robert Maynard Harris 13980 S.E. 80th Avenue Summerfield, Florida 32691 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Vicki Weber, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact In July 1975, in Hillsborough County, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on the charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. He was placed in the Pretrial Intervention Program, which he successfully completed. As a result, formal charges were either never filed or were dismissed by the State Attorney. On January 18, 1982, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to one charge of trafficking in excess of ten thousand pounds of cannabis in Hernando County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld by the court. Petitioner was placed on probation for twelve years. On August 1, 1983, in Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere to the offenses of aggravated assault with the use of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon on or about his person. The court accepted Petitioner's pleas. Adjudications of guilt were withheld on August 1, 1983. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years, to run concurrent with his probation in Hernando County, Florida. Petitioner's probation in the trafficking case was terminated early in Hernando County, Florida, on March 14, 1985. Petitioner's probation for the aggravated assault and the concealed weapon was terminated early in Pinellas County, Florida, on December 11, 1985. Petitioner was never adjudicated guilty of the charges the Division used as the basis for the denial of his application. As a result, he has not been convicted of any of these crimes as the term "conviction" is defined in Subsection 493.6101(8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted eleven letters of good moral character from people in the community who have known him throughout the years and are aware of the prior criminal charges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern License should be granted. ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Rejected. Contrary to prehearing stipulation. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #1. Reject. Contrary to fact only one charge of trafficking in the Information and only one nolo contendere plea on a charge of trafficking. As the basis given for licensure denial was alleged trafficking charges, the importation of cannabis charge and nolo contendere plea were not considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to Subsection 493.6118(3), Florida Statutes. See Hearing Officer finding #2. Accepted. See Hearing Officer findings #3 and #5. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph H. Ficarrotta, Esquire 600 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire Honorable Jim Smith General Counsel Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Tallahassee Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact While a student at Southwest Florida Police Academy in April 1981, Petitioner gave Janice Kellogg a baggie containing 3.2 grams of marijuana. The only factual dispute occurred regarding the circumstances leading to Petitioner's acquisition of the marijuana and the reasons for giving the marijuana to Kellogg. Petitioner testified he found the marijuana in the road leading into a trailer space adjacent to his trailer the morning after the trailer had departed. He further testified he threw the marijuana into the cab of his pickup truck intending to turn it in to the authorities; that he was engaged in final exams and forgot about the marijuana until later in the day when a K-9 drug dog was presented and Petitioner hid the marijuana to test the dog; that after they observed the dog locate the marijuana, Kellogg asked Petitioner for the marijuana and he gave it to her; and that when he asked for it back later that day he was told she had smoked it. Kellogg's version of the events surrounding the marijuana is that after the marijuana had been produced for the drug dog, Petitioner gave her the baggie saying, "You look like a girl who likes to lay back and smoke a joint once in a while." Upon receipt of the marijuana Kellogg turned it in to police authorities and at their request attempted to get Petitioner to provide her with additional marijuana, without success. She further testified Petitioner told her he had obtained the marijuana from a suspect he had "frisked" the previous day. Petitioner worked in law enforcement in Tennessee for at least two years before moving to Florida. He has been in charge of the drug section of a police force in Tennessee but has had no special training. His experience caused him to immediately recognize the contents of the baggie as marijuana. Janice Kellogg has been involved in police work in Florida for one and one-half years and worked as a confidential informant to a narcotics squad in Michigan for five years before coming to Florida. She is certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a public school teacher employed by the Washington County School Board under a continuing contract of employment at the time of the events referred to in the Petition for Dismissal. He remained on continuing contract status as a teacher at the Roulhac Middle School until his suspension on November 7, 1983. On the morning of April 5, 1982, William Poole, Chief of Police for the City of Bonifay, responded to a confidential informant's report of suspected marijuana plants growing on property located at 312 Caldwell Avenue, Bonifay, Florida. Chief Poole went to that location accompanied by Assistant Chief of Police Ike Gardner. When he arrived at the scene in the rear of the house located at that address and across the back fence marking the rear boundary of the property, the Chief looked over or through the fence on the rear boundary of the property and observed what he believed to be ten to twelve marijuana plants growing in a garden along the back fence. The house was owned at the time by the Respondent's Mother, Lavada Forehand, who was living in the house with the Respondent at the time the suspected marijuana plants were discovered. Chief Poole took photographs of the property, the garden and the suspected marijuana plants at that time, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. An investigation was initiated and in the early morning hours of April 7, 1982, Chief Poole again observed the suspected marijuana plants in the Respondent's garden. Later that day the Chief received a call from a confidential informant to the effect that the Respondent was, at that time, in the garden. Chief Poole proceeded to a residence on adjacent property and viewed the garden, and at approximately 4:00 p.m. that afternoon observed the Respondent watering plants in the garden for approximately 20 minutes. The officers were equipped with a camera with a telephoto lens at the time, and took photographs of the Respondent watering his garden, which were offered and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Based upon his personal observations and the photographs which he obtained, Chief Poole proceeded to the State Attorney's office where he was assisted in the preparation of a search warrant for the subject property, which was duly issued by the Court. That evening of April 7, 1982, the two officers proceeded to the Caldwell Avenue residence owned by Respondent's mother, where the Respondent resided, and served the search warrant. When they arrived the Respondent was present with his mother and another lady with several children. The officers served the search warrant and thereupon went to the garden area which they had earlier observed and found it "standing in water." The suspected marijuana plants which they had previously observed were no longer present, and no traces of marijuana could be found in the house or on the grounds. At the time the premises were searched, and at the time the officers observed the Respondent watering the garden, the Respondent resided at the premises in question with his mother and by his own admission had resided there for approximately the last three weeks prior to April 7, 1982. In addition to the Respondent and his mother residing at the premises, various friends and relatives and other persons had access to the premises and visited there from time to time. Other persons have lived there or been invited there from time to time and his mother had problems during 1982 with trespassers on her property and has complained to the Bonifay Police Department regarding trespassers. Respondent acknowledges that he maintained the garden on the site growing tomatoes, bell pepper and other large and small vegetables including "a couple of hills of squash" and broccoli. On the day in question he was watering tomato plants according to his testimony. The Respondent has a nephew who sometimes resides with Respondent's mother and so do other young persons. The Respondent maintained he did not plant the marijuana plants and does not know who did plant them. In fact it has not been established that the Respondent planted the marijuana plants. The Respondent knows the neighbors who own the property and live adjoining his mother with the exception of neighbors who lived in the house from which the officers conducted the surveillance and from which the photographs were taken, who moved in and out quickly so that the Respondent did not become acquainted with them. The Respondent is active in his teacher's union and has incurred an increasingly hostile relationship with Superintendent Adams since 1981 when the Superintendent ordered interscholastic sports terminated at Roulhac Middle School where the Respondent coached as well as taught Civics. The Respondent conducted a campaign to reinstate athletics at the school at the behest of many of the parents of students at the school, and in the course of this campaign engendered a relationship of animosity with Superintendent Adams. The Respondent maintains that he cannot identify the plants depicted in the photos considered by the officers to be marijuana plants. He once smoked marijuana 14 years ago when in college but has not smoked it since and once taught a drug abuse course for the Northwest Florida Drug Abuse Council. He agrees with Superintendent Adams' view that a teacher using drugs should be dismissed but he denies doing so since becoming a teacher. Although it was established that the Respondent was likely capable of identifying marijuana by sight in view of his prior experience with the drug education course, it was not established that in fact he knew the marijuana was in the garden on his mother's property, nor was it established that he had sole access to or control of his mother's property, including the house and surrounding grounds, and particularly, the garden in question. Chief Poole had no doubt that the plants he observed, and which were photographed and are depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, were marijuana plants. The Chief could not establish however, that the plants that Forehand was observed and photographed watering were actually marijuana plants as opposed to tomatoes, bell peppers, squash or some other vegetable which were present in the garden. Both Chief Poole and Agent William Fisher of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement are trained to make visual identification of marijuana. Chief Poole, however, is not trained to make a chemical analysis in identification of controlled substances, including marijuana, nor is he trained to give a positive identification of marijuana based upon other forms of testing, aside from visual identification. Agent William Fisher is very familiar with marijuana and testified that the plants depicted in Exhibit 1 "appeared" to be marijuana. Agent Fisher was shown the photographs of the plants the Respondent was watering but could not identify that the plants he was watering were actually marijuana. Agent Fisher testified that there was a "strong probability" that the plants depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 were marijuana plants but added that he was not trained to make a positive identification of marijuana plants and did not consider himself qualified to do so. He was unable to perform any sort of "presumptive test" as for instance, by smell or taste or touch, because he was only shown a photograph of the plants in question. Chief Poole has had 11 years of law enforcement experience and attended numerous classes concerning drug enforcement and drug identification, and has served as a drug-handler for a "drug dog." In his years of law enforcement experience he has sent numerous samples of suspected marijuana to the FDLE Crime Lab in Tallahassee and Pensacola, and none of his samples have ever been confirmed as anything other than marijuana. Chief Poole, however, did not succeed in obtaining the plants he observed growing in the subject garden upon his search of the premises, however, because they had "disappeared." Thus, no chemical or other positive identification test has been performed on anymarijuana seized on the premises in question, because none was seized at all. The officers performing the search did not know whether other people might have access to the house and garden in question, and Chief Poole admitted he did not know who else might have access to the garden. The Respondent called five "character witnesses" (four teachers and one parent) each of whom had had acquaintance with the Respondent for a substantial period of time and had knowledge of his reputation in the community for truth and veracity. The Respondent has a reputation for being truthful. The Respondent has never before been subjected to disciplinary action during his career as a teacher.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner herein should be DISMISSED and the Respondent should be reinstated with full back pay from the date he was suspended without pay. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 20th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Adams, Superintendent of Schools Washington County School Board 206 North Third Street Chipley, Florida 32428
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's expulsion of Respondent from school is appropriate pursuant to provisions of Union County School Board Rule 5.37 and Section 230.23(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is R.S.V. He was a senior year student at Union County High School in October, 1994. Donald Leech was the principal of Union County High School in October, 1994, when he was apprised that there was a possibility of sale and possession of marijuana at the school. Leech contacted the school resource officer, Union County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Townsend, Jr., and an investigation was launched. Efforts of Townsend and Leech failed to yield any evidence of contraband substances on the school campus that could be linked to any individual or tested for purposes of subsequent prosecution. They had, however, obtained information about an event involving the alleged use of marijuana which had occurred on the school campus and allegedly involved Respondent. As a result, their investigation focused on Respondent. Townsend was apprised by his superior at the sheriff's department that a criminal prosecution could not be maintained due to the lack of admissible evidence or a "corpus delicti." Still, Leech and Townsend determined to question Respondent. On October 11, 1994, Leech and Townsend interrogated Respondent regarding his participation in the possession of a marijuana "joint" on school property on October 6, 1994. Townsend first apprised Respondent of his right against self- incrimination through the reading to Respondent of "Miranda" warnings regarding incriminating statements. The questioning then began. In response to questions, Respondent denied any knowledge of the October 6, 1994, incident. Leech failed to gain an admission from Respondent even though Leech advised Respondent that suspension for 10 days for being in an improper area (the school parking lot) was the only likely penalty. Leech then left the room. Respondent asked to telephone his mother. Townsend agreed. Respondent called his mother and explained the situation to her. She asked to speak with Townsend. Townsend told her that sufficient evidence existed to criminally prosecute Respondent. Respondent's mother told Townsend to cease questioning her son until Respondent's father arrived. Townsend complied and left Respondent alone in the room. Respondent's father soon arrived. He did not speak with Respondent. He, likewise, was informed by Townsend that sufficient evidence for prosecution existed, but that co- operation by Respondent would go a long way with authorities and have an impact on the likelihood of prosecution. Then, with the assent of Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father spoke privately with two other youths who were alleged to be involved in the incident. As a result of his conversation with the two youths, Respondent's father learned that his son had been present at a incident on school property where an alleged marijuana cigarette had been smoked but that his son had refused to participate in smoking the "joint." Respondent's father then spoke with Leech and Townsend. In addition to the earlier advice by Townsend of leniency if his son co-operated with the investigation, Respondent's father was now informed by Leech that only a 10 day suspension from school was contemplated because of Respondent's presence during the incident which had occurred in the school parking lot, an "improper area." Without any discussion with his son or legal counsel and solely in reliance upon the representations made to him by Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father then confronted his son and told Respondent to provide a written statement to Leech and Townsend. Respondent's statement reads as follows: On October 6, 1994. Myself, people 1 and people 2 walked out to the parking lot. People 1 lit up a marijuana joint and smoked it then passed it to people 2. After that, people 2 passed it to me. The 2 peoples walked off and I put it out and left it in the parking lot. After school I picked it up and kept it. Respondent later admitted to his father that he subsequently destroyed the remains of the cigarette after leaving school property. While Respondent's written statement references a "marijuana joint", no evidence was presented at the final hearing which is dispositive of whether the substance was, in actuality, cannabis. On the basis of Respondent's written statement, Leech instituted an immediate 10 day suspension of Respondent. On October 13, 1994, two days later, Leech formally recommended to the Union County School Superintendent, Eugene Dukes, that Respondent be expelled for the remainder of the school year. At final hearing, Leech rationalized that his expulsion recommendation was based upon Respondent's actual possession of the alleged contraband, as opposed to merely being present at the incident. By notice dated October 12, 1994, one day before the formal notification to him from Leech, Respondent's mother was informed by Superintendent Dukes that he would recommend the expulsion of Respondent for the remainder of the school year. The notice set forth no specific factual basis for the expulsion recommendation, but recited that the action was taken on the basis of misconduct charges set forth in Section 230.33 and Section 232.26, Florida Statutes, as well as Union County School Board Rules Section 5.37. Dukes also recommended the expulsion of the other students who admitted to actually smoking the alleged marijuana cigarette in question. The proposed expulsion of Respondent prevented his return to Union County High School and resulted in his completion of his senior year of high school in the school district of Columbia County, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Union County School Board imposing a 10 day suspension upon Respondent for violation of school restrictions regarding his presence in an improper location. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order direct the destruction or sealing of school records that document the expulsion of Respondent for possession of a controlled substance due to the absence of credible evidence to sustain such charge. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 May, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1. Accepted. 2.-11. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 12.-13. Rejected, legal conclusions, relevancy. 14. Rejected as to first preparatory phrase of the paragraph as unsupported by weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to result reached. 15.-16. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 17.-18. Incorporated by reference. 19.-20. Rejected, subordinate. 21. Rejected, legal conclusion. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Accepted, but not verbatim. Incorporated by reference. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Meyer and Brooks Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen N. Bernstein, Esquire Post Office Box 1642 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Eugene Dukes, Superintendent Union County School Board 55 West Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue This cause concerns the issue of whether the Petitioner should impose disciplinary sanctions against the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. Specifically the issues concern whether the Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring maintenance of good moral character by a certified law enforcement officer and, if he has not, what discipline is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensing (certification) of law enforcement officers and with enforcing the practice standards embodied in Chapter 943 Florida Statutes and pendent rules. It regulates the practice of law enforcement officers through the enactment of regulatory standards and enforcement of such standards by rulemaking, as well as by implementation of policy decisions. The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer on June 17, 1982. He was issued certificate number 02- 331-00. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Gainesville Police Department at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Early on the morning of January 2, 1988, the Respondent returned from a trip to Atlanta, Georgia, of several days duration. He returned directly to his residence at the Gardenia Apartments, an apartment complex in Gainesville, Florida. On that morning, Sergeant Louis Aceveda of the Gainesville Police Department responded to a call to investigate a complaint of loitering and a possible illicit drug transaction at the apartment complex. Sergeant Aceveda is a narcotics investigator for that police department. Shortly after his arrival at the Gardenia Apartments complex, Sergeant Aceveda coincidentally encountered the Respondent, a fellow police officer, when the Respondent was driving into the parking lot of the complex. They engaged in a brief conversation about Sergeant Aceveda's purpose at the site and the Sergeant asked the Respondent if he could use the restroom in the Respondent's apartment. The Respondent readily agreed. Upon entering the Respondent's apartment the Sergeant smelled an aroma of burnt marijuana. No one else was present in the apartment at that time other than Sergeant Aceveda and the Respondent. The Sergeant made his way to the only restroom in the apartment and closed the door. Once he was in the restroom he observed a partially-burned marijuana cigarette in an ashtray lying in plain view on the top of the toilet tank. He confiscated that cigarette remnant, placed it in his pocket, and left the Respondent's apartment without revealing his discovery to the Respondent. After leaving the apartment he reported the incident to his supervisors and fellow investigators. Later that same day, Detective Drayton McDaniel of the Gainesville Police Department Narcotics and Organized Crime Section executed a probable cause affidavit in support of a search warrant application in order to attempt a search of the Respondent's apartment. The affidavit was based on Sergeant Aceveda's observations made earlier that day. It was presented to a county judge who found probable cause and issued a search warrant for the Respondent's apartment. At approximately 7:50 p.m. on January 2, 1988 Detective McDaniel and several other officers met the Respondent outside his apartment. Detective McDaniel knew the Respondent as a fellow police officer. He read the search warrant to the Respondent and the Respondent exhibited no specific reaction, asked no questions and made no comments concerning the search. Detective McDaniel and the officers assisting him then entered the apartment and began the search. Detective McDaniel collected, packaged and placed identification on certain seized items found during the search. Sergeant A. W. Smith, the Respondent's former supervisor, assisted with the search. He found a metal can top which contained approximately one tenth of a gram of marijuana (cannabis) as well as "rolling papers" commonly used to roll marijuana cigarettes. This material was in plain view on top of the Respondent's dresser in his bedroom. The Respondent's police badge and identification had been placed almost in contact with the metal can top on top of the dresser also. Investigator Richard Brooks of the Alachua County Sheriff's office also assisted in the search. He found an ashtray in the Respondent's bedroom which contained three marijuana cigarettes. Inside a drawer in the dresser Detective McDaniel found a black ceramic smoking pipe containing the residue of cannabis in the bowl. Sergeant Smith found a closed, purple handbag in the same bedroom on top of a chest at the foot of the bed. Inside the handbag was the Respondent's service revolver, issued to him by the Gainesville Police Department, as well as a small bag containing 1.5 grams of cannabis. Detective McDaniel found two cannabis cigarettes in the Respondent's automobile after he had obtained the Respondent's consent to search it. Sergeant Smith found four partially smoked marijuana cigarettes weighing approximately a tenth of a gram which were in a metal tray on the top of a dresser in the Respondent's bedroom. These were in plain view. Sergeant Smith also found a round tray under the dresser in the Respondent's bedroom which contained .1 gram of cannabis. During this lengthy search the Respondent was present. Despite this he made no statements nor asked any questions of his fellow police officers, who were known to him, while they were searching his home and his vehicle. However when Detective McDaniel discovered a small bag of suspected cocaine in his vehicle the Respondent indicated to him that his fingerprints would not be found on the bag. Other than this he was heard to make no comment during the entire search. After the search was concluded Detective McDaniel told him that he would be arrested. Again he made no statement. On January 4, 1988 Investigator Raymond Griffin of the Gainesville Police Department Internal Affairs Unit conducted an administrative interview of the Respondent. The Respondent was asked to submit to a urinalysis to determine if he had used narcotics but refused to do so. On January 5, 1988 the Respondent resigned his position with the Gainesville Police Department after having worked in that capacity for five and one- half years. On May 31, 1988 he entered a plea of nolo contendere on the charge of possession of cannabis before the County Court, In And For Alachua County. The Respondent maintained in his testimony that he had been to Atlanta on a vacation trip for several days, during which time his brother and some of his friends had used his apartment, apparently as a place for temporary residence and to "party". The Respondent indicated that he felt that his brother or other persons occupying the premises temporarily, during his brother's possession of them, had left the marijuana cigarettes and remnants of them on the premises. The Respondent maintained that he was gathering these items to begin investigating their origin and who might be responsible for them and that this was why he had the marijuana in the purple handbag and on top of his dresser. He had no explanation for the marijuana cigarette remnants from the bathroom or under the dresser or from his vehicle, however. The same is true of the discovery of the cocaine in his vehicle. The Respondent maintained that he was unable to locate his brother to secure his testimony for this proceeding because at some point after the Respondent's arrest and resignation from the Gainesville Police Department, and before this hearing, the Respondent's brother was convicted of a felony, and sentenced and incarcerated in the state prison system. The Respondent professed not to know his whereabouts at the time of the hearing. The Respondent's version of events concerning his gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, for purposes of conducting an investigation concerning its origin is not accepted. It is not credible to believe that a police officer of five and one-half years experience would gather marijuana and place it on his dresser in a convenient location, in the belief that persons not normally using his apartment had left those items there, without conducting a thorough search of his apartment so that he would have discovered the other marijuana remnants and also gathered them into a central location for preservation as evidence. If he had really intended gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, he would certainly have discovered that which was found in the bathroom, under the dresser and the marijuana smoking pipe from the dresser drawer. The fact that these other items were discovered not gathered and preserved in one location for transmittal to the police department, and the origination of an investigation, belies the Respondent's story in this regard. In fact, it appears that the Respondent was simply in possession of an illegal substance, marijuana, in his apartment and the search was conducted and the discoveries made before he could dispose of it. His story is further belied by the fact that cocaine and marijuana cigarettes were found in his automobile, which does not fit his description of events concerning his gathering of evidence to investigate who might have left the marijuana lying around the apartment. He was in possession of his automobile during the Atlanta trip. Further, his possession of the marijuana in question in the apartment was shown by the fact that he was present at home in the residence when the search warrant was served and the marijuana was lying around, or most of it was, in plain view. It is, thus, difficult to believe that he was unaware of its presence and did not have dominion and control over it. The fact that the marijuana in his apartment was under his dominion and control and, therefore, his possession, is corroborated by the fact that marijuana was found, along with cocaine, in his vehicle, which points to the fact that all the illegal substances found were possessed by the Respondent with his knowledge. There was certainly no evidence that Respondent's brother or other unknown persons had used his vehicle and left marijuana and cocaine therein unbeknownst to the Respondent. In summary, the marijuana being in plain view in the apartment at several different locations indicates that it was in the Respondent's actual possession, that he knew of it, and that he simply was surprised before he could discard it or otherwise dispose of it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revoking the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1-28. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the subject matter, and not entirely supported by the clear and convincing evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted. 5-13. Accepted. 14. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive of the issues presented for adjudication. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Horace N. Moore, Sr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2146 Gainesville, FL 32602 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Annelle C. Jones, is now, and has been at all relevant times, a licensed practical nurse, having been issued license number PN 1091101. Ms. Jones resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. On September 28, 1992, a final judgment was entered dissolving the marriage of Gary Jenkins and Annelle Jones. It was an acrimonious divorce and he vowed to "get even". That same evening, September 28th, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sent a child protective services worker to Ms. Jones' home to interview her child about a report they received that she used marijuana. The next day, September 29, 1992, Deputy J. D. Maney of the Polk County Sheriff's office went to Ms. Jones' residence on a tip that she was growing marijuana. She admitted him into her residence and gave permission for his search. On a bed in the bedroom, Deputy Maney found a purse which Ms. Jones identified as hers. She agreed to dump out the contents, and in the bottom, mixed with sand and dust, was a flattened small marijuana butt. Deputy Maney found marijuana leafy material on the window sill. In the back yard he found seven marijuana plants growing in cut-off milk jugs. They were alive, but barely alive. There were some dead plants that had been stripped and tossed under an oak tree. Deputy Maney did a field test on the plants, confirming they were marijuana, and arrested Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones was released on her own recognizance and was given a drug screen, the result of which was negative. She was later tried and was found guilty of one count of manufacture (growing) marijuana. The sentence imposed on April 2, 1993, was three years probation, with conditions that Ms. Jones avoid alcohol or illegal drugs and maintain employment. After consistently producing negative drug test results and otherwise complying with probation conditions, Ms. Jones has been released from probation and is in the process of obtaining her master's degree in social work. Ms. Jones vehemently denies using illegal drugs, and there is no direct evidence that she has used them. She also claims that the plants and residue found at her home were her ex-husband's. That bare allegation is not enhanced by any corroborative evidence or explanation from Ms. Jones. She did not explain, for example, why she did not dispose of the marijuana at any time prior to the deputy 's search. She asserted to the deputy and at the hearing that she knew why he was at her home since HRS had already been there on a tip that she was growing marijuana. Yet even after HRS came, the plants still remained. She also did not explain the presence of the marijuana in her purse. Marijuana (cannabis) is a controlled substance under chapter 893, F.S. Pursuant to section 893.03(1), F.S. it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Ms. Jones did not claim that her possession was for a legitimate purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Annelle C. Jones violated section 464.018(1)(i), F.S. and that the following penalties be imposed: reprimand and $100.00 fine. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Joseph S. Garwood, Sr. Atty. Agency for Health Care Admin. 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Annelle C. Jones 520 33rd Street, N.W. Winter Haven, FL 33880-1809
The Issue Should the Petitioner impose discipline against Respondent, holder of an alcoholic beverage license, for violations of laws pertaining to that license?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 47-00190, series 4COP, issued by Petitioner. This license allowed Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises known as Kent's Northside Lounge and Restaurant, located at 1133 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent was the sole holder of that license. Respondent continues to hold the license. Beginning January 1997, and ending April 25, 1997, Petitioner, together with other law enforcement agencies, conducted an investigation of the licensed premises to determine if violations of law involving illegal narcotics were occurring. While involved in this investigation, Petitioner also investigated alleged violations involving tobacco. On January 7, 1997, Gordon Chesney entered the licensed premises. He was acting in the capacity of a paid law enforcement undercover operative. He was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Once in the bar he made the acquaintance of a person identified as "Wild Bill." Wild Bill refers to Bill Ferris, Respondent's bartender. Chip Kirby, another bartender, was also in the licensed premises. When Chesney introduced himself to Ferris, Chesney wanted to know "where the action is" in town. In conversation Chesney asked Ferris "Does it ever snow down here?" This reference was a slang term for cocaine. Ferris responded that "it would snow in a few days." This comment referred to the availability of cocaine. Chesney told Ferris he would like to get some "snow." After their initial meeting, Chesney telephoned Ferris at the bar. Ferris told Chesney to come to the bar. Chesney returned to the bar at around 6:30 p.m. on January 9, 1997. Once in the bar Chesney made contact with Ferris. Ferris took Chesney over to a booth in the premises. At this time there were customers in the bar, approximately ten to fifteen people. The other bartender, Kirby, was also in the premises. Respondent was not in the premises. Ferris referred to "she is not here yet," meaning the person who was supposed to deliver cocaine to Ferris. Ferris then invited Chesney to the bathroom in the premises. Chesney showed Ferris money he had brought to purchase cocaine. Ferris indicated that there wasn't enough money. Chesney promised to bring more money later. Chesney went away from the premises to obtain more money and returned to the bar at around 8:30 p.m. When Chesney first arrived at the bar on January 9, 1997, Ferris had not been on duty as a bartender. When Chesney returned to the bar, Ferris was on duty. When Chesney returned, he told Ferris that he was ready. Ferris replied that "she" would be here any minute. A girl then came into the bar. Ferris talked to her. Ferris then came to a booth and invited Chesney to go outside with Ferris. While at the booth, Ferris asked Chesney if he had the rest of the money. They went outside. Chesney gave money to Ferris. The money given to Ferris was in addition to the money which Chesney had given Ferris in the bathroom. Ferris gave Chesney a small baggie containing what was taken to be cocaine. The exchange of additional money and the baggie was made right outside the door of the premises. Chesney turned over the item that he had purchased from Ferris to Officer Kevin Taylor of the Tallahassee Police Department. In turn Detective Louis Donaldson of that department took custody of the item. On January 15, 1997, Chesney returned to the bar. His purpose was to obtain additional cocaine. Once in the bar Chesney contacted Ferris. Ferris was working behind the bar at the time. Chesney told Ferris he wanted to "get a quarter." This refers to a quantity of cocaine. Ferris told Chesney that "she will be here any minute." Chesney waited about half an hour. Then a girl came in the back door and talked to Ferris. Then Ferris went back to an area of the bar which is a restaurant. In about five minutes Ferris came out with a Styrofoam soup cup. He said "here is your soup." Chesney said "okay." Chesney gave Ferris $300 and walked out of the bar. On this occasion Respondent was in the premises seated at a table behind Chesney. That location was about eight feet from Chesney's location. Other people were seated with the Respondent. On this occasion music was playing. Sometimes the music was loud. Sometimes the music was not loud. Chesney cannot recall whether the music was loud during conversations held with Ferris concerning the purchase of the cocaine. But the conversation between Chesney and Ferris was in a normal tone. Once outside of the premises, Chesney turned his purchase over to an officer. Again Detective Donaldson took custody of the item. Detective Donaldson prepared a property receipt for those items seized on January 9 and 15, 1997, that were purchased by Chesney. The items were temporarily held in custody by the Tallahassee Police Department. Those items were then forwarded to and tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who having analyzed the items, discovered the presence of cocaine. On January 22, 1997, Chesney reentered the licensed premises with Officer Alan Wayne Davis, Jr., who worked for the Petitioner in an undercover capacity. Chesney introduced Davis to Ferris. Ferris was working as a bartender at that time. Specifically Ferris was serving beer and mixed drinks, and taking money. Because Davis was acting in an undercover capacity, he did not tell Ferris that he, Davis, was a law enforcement officer. Davis never revealed his position as a law enforcement officer to any persons who were the subject of the investigation. In pursuit of his undercover role, Davis told Ferris that he was a member of a motorcycle club. On this date a conversation held in a normal tone involved the subject of cocaine. This refers to a conversation between Davis and Ferris. Davis returned to the bar alone on January 23, 1997. He contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. They discussed a prior cocaine deal between Ferris and Chesney in a normal tone. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Samuel H. Lewis at the bar. Davis was introduced by Ferris. Lewis was taking bets on the upcoming Superbowl football game. The bets were premised upon placing projected scores on a paper square for a cost of one dollar. The winner was to be determined by the individual who placed the bet and guessed the total score. The game was a game of chance, not skill. Davis gave Lewis five dollars to participate in the betting pool. An envelope of bets containing fifty-seven dollars was available when Lewis began to collect bets. Lewis received about twenty additional signatures (twenty dollars) in the bar representing individual bets. The overall pool had one hundred squares. Respondent was not at the bar on January 23, 1997, when the football pool was held. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Robert Strauss, Respondent's son. Robert Strauss was an employee at the bar. In conversation Davis was asked what kind of business he was in. Davis responded that he was in the business of making money. Before Davis met Robert Strauss, Ferris had asked Davis if Davis sold cigarettes, in that, as Ferris described the matter, Robert Strauss was always looking for a good price on cigarettes. Davis had answered Ferris in the affirmative. This led to the introduction to Robert Strauss. Conversations about cigarettes were open, in normal tones. In discussion Robert Strauss asked Davis if the cigarettes that Davis had for sale had stamps on them. Davis replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, Davis commented to Robert Strauss that the cigarettes were "so hot that you could feel it." Davis intended by his remarks to indicate that the cigarettes that he had were stolen. That intent would create the most likely inference to be gained from Davis' remarks. Davis did not indicate that he was a licensed wholesale cigarette distributor on that occasion or any other occasion. Through conversation Davis and Robert Strauss arrived at a price of eight dollars a carton for cigarettes, a price below the expected value of that merchandise. Robert Strauss asked Davis to bring him a case of cigarettes next Wednesday. Davis agreed to that request. When Robert Strauss made the overture to Davis concerning the purchase of cigarettes, Davis was not in control of cigarettes. To further the investigation, Petitioner purchased cigarettes from a wholesaler, SuperValue Warehouse. Petitioner caused stamps to be attached to those cigarettes. Those stamps were out of circulation and not involved in normal commerce. By this attachment, the impression that was created was that the cigarettes were properly stamped. The cigarettes were then turned over to Davis to be used in furtherance of the investigation. In a later conversation between Ferris and Davis on January 23, 1997, the subject of cocaine was discussed. This conversation took place in the bar. Davis told Ferris that he might want cocaine at a later time. Ferris invited Kirby into the conversation. Kirby tried to tell Davis what a good deal Kirby and Ferris could get Davis on some "coke." This refers to cocaine. At that point in time, Kirby was working at the bar. The price discussed was $750 for a half ounce of cocaine. Kirby indicated that the cocaine would be available Friday and that Davis could come back and purchase the cocaine from Kirby and Ferris. The conversation about cocaine was openly stated. Davis returned to the bar on January 29, 1997. Davis made contact with Ferris who was tending bar, and had a conversation about Davis' failure to purchase cocaine, causing Ferris and Kirby to be "stuck with the coke," trying to sell it to someone else. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice. Robert Strauss was not at the bar on that occasion. Nonetheless, Ferris told Davis that, Robert, referring to Robert Strauss, wanted to purchase cigarettes. Ferris indicated he would contact Robert Strauss and return to purchase cigarettes from Davis. Ferris then made a telephone call. Ferris then purchased cigarettes from Davis for $100 in return for twelve cartons of Winstons. Those cigarettes sold by Davis on this occasion, and on other occasions, were the cigarettes that Petitioner had placed the out-of-date stamps on, after obtaining the cigarettes from the wholesaler SuperValue Warehouse. Davis returned to the licensed premises on February 5, 1997. While at the bar, Robert Strauss walked out of another part of the bar and yelled to Davis, "Hey, cigarette man, I will be right out." Robert Strauss was approximately twenty feet away from Davis when he made those remarks. Respondent was sitting in one of the booths of the bar at the time. On this visit to the bar, Davis engaged in a conversation with Ferris. Ferris was not on duty at that time. Then Davis spoke with Robert Strauss. Robert Strauss asked Davis what type of cigarettes Davis had brought. Davis replied that he had brought thirty cartons of Marlboro Lights and a Phillieblunt box full of cigars. Robert Strauss asked if the price of the cigarettes was still eight dollars a carton. Davis said yes. The cigarettes were delivered from Davis to Robert Strauss across the counter after Davis obtained the cigarettes from his vehicle. At that time patrons were at the bar. Robert Strauss paid Davis $240 for the cigarettes from the cash register at the bar, by openly handing Davis the money. Robert Strauss then took the cigarettes to a back portion of the premises. Davis purchased one pack of Marlboro Lights back from Robert Strauss for a price of three dollars out of the cigarettes that had just been sold from Davis to Robert Strauss. On this date, Davis also told Robert Strauss that the cigarettes "were so hot that they wouldn't even have to be lit," in conversation concerning the purchase of additional cigarettes beyond that point in time. At the bar, Davis then engaged in a conversation with Ferris about cocaine in a normal tone. Davis returned to the bar on February 12, 1997. At that time Ferris was working behind the bar, Robert Strauss was also on the premises in the kitchen area. Davis told Robert Strauss that he had thirty cartons of Winstons. Robert Strauss told Davis he would give Davis five dollars per carton for all thirty. They agreed. Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons for five dollars each. Davis brought the cigarettes in from his car in a large box and placed them on the edge of the bar in making the exchange. Twelve to fifteen patrons were in the licensed premises. Robert Strauss took the money to pay for the cigarettes from a bank bag near the cash register. The transaction was openly conducted. On that same date Davis discussed with Ferris the purchase of cocaine while Ferris was working behind the bar. The amount discussed was an ounce. To facilitate the purchase, Ferris gave Davis his work and home telephone numbers; these included the number for the bar. Davis returned to the bar on February 19, 1997. Davis contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. Patrons were in the bar at that time. Ferris asked Davis if Davis had brought the cigarettes for Robert Strauss. Kirby came over to Davis and asked if Davis was still looking to get an ounce, referring to the purchase of cocaine. Davis said yes. Davis gave Kirby $1,400 in cash in furtherance of a purchase. Kirby counted the money while at the bar without attempting to disguise his activities. Kirby put the money in his pocket and went to the business phone in the premises and made a call. Kirby then returned and told Davis he couldn't contact his main supplier, but that he had another source he could get it from who was in the bar. This discussion was held in a regular tone of voice. Kirby left the bar and then returned. Davis was instructed to follow Kirby and Ferris to a back room. Davis followed them to a storage room. Kirby then pulled a bag out of his shirt represented to be cocaine. Davis weighed the substance on scales. While this transaction took place, the parties were concealed by a door. The substance weighed approximately an ounce. When Davis left the licensed premises, he turned the substance over to a case agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On the same day, Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons of cigarettes delivered to Ferris after Robert Strauss handed Ferris $100 to give to Davis. Davis delivered the cigarettes in a box from the trunk of his vehicle and placed them on the top of the bar during the exchange. Robert Strauss had obtained the money from a bank bag. On February 25, 1997, Ferris paged Davis. Davis called Ferris and Ferris told Davis he would give Davis an ounce of cocaine for $1,320. Davis said he wanted three ounces. An arrangement was made to meet on February 27, 1997, at the bar to carry out the transaction. On February 27, 1997, Davis returned to the bar in the company of a law enforcement officer, Agent Scirpan of the DEA. Davis met with Ferris after walking in the bar. Ferris told Davis to follow him outside. Ferris questioned Davis concerning the possibility that Davis was a cop or affiliated with law enforcement. Davis did not acknowledge his status as a law enforcement officer. They then went to Ferris' truck to count the money that would be used in purchasing cocaine. Respondent was seated at a table in the premises when Davis and Ferris left the premises to go to Ferris' truck. The truck was located by the side of the bar. Davis gave Ferris $4,000. They then went inside the bar. Ferris made a telephone call from the business phone in the premises. Ferris then exited the bar. While in the bar, Davis observed a girl sitting at the bar rolling what appeared to be a cannabis cigarette, known by its appearance to Davis to be cannabis, based upon his experience as a law enforcement officer. Robert Strauss was there at that time two to three feet away. Robert Strauss made no attempt to confront the patron concerning this practice. Davis ordered a pack of Marlboro Lights from the bartender and paid for them. To get the cigarettes, Respondent had to produce the keys to the storage room to obtain the cigarettes purchased. The cigarettes that Davis purchased bore the out-of-date stamp involved with the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Robert Strauss. On that same date an unidentified white male came in offering to sell cartons of cigarettes. The unidentified male was trying to sell cigarettes for ten dollars a carton. At that time Respondent had left the bar. Later Ferris returned to the bar and asked Davis to go outside with him. They got in Davis' car and rode around the block. Ferris gave Davis approximately three ounces of a substance as part of the arrangement to purchase cocaine. This item was turned over to a DEA agent. On March 6, 1997, Davis called Kirby at the bar and ordered an ounce of cocaine. The tone of the conversation was normal. On March 7, 1997, Davis went to the bar and contacted Kirby. Kirby was working. Kirby said the deal was off because of a death in the family. Kirby told Davis that they could talk later about doing one or two "keys" of coke. A "key" refers to a kilo of cocaine. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice across the bar. On March 17, 1997, Davis called Ferris at the business phone number Ferris had given Davis. The call was about purchasing more cocaine. The phone number used was the number for the licensed premises. An arrangement was made to purchase cocaine of an undisclosed amount on the following Wednesday. On the following Wednesday, which was March 19, 1997, Davis returned to the bar and met with Ferris. Ferris was concerned about the rumor that there was an undercover officer working inside the bar. Davis did not acknowledge his undercover capacity in this conversation. It was decided to wait awhile before the parties did any more business. However, there was a conversation between Davis and Kirby in which Kirby said they could go to Miami and pick up cocaine. This conversation was in a normal tone of voice. As Davis was starting to leave, Robert Strauss approached Davis and asked Davis to bring back some cigarettes when Davis returned. On April 7, 1997, Davis called Ferris and discussed the purchase of one ounce of cocaine on the following Wednesday. This call was made to the telephone within the licensed premises. An agreement was made to purchase an ounce of cocaine, the cost of which was not determined. On April 16, 1997, Davis called the licensed premises and spoke with Kirby about the purchase of an ounce of cocaine. Then Davis went to the licensed premises and contacted Kirby who was working behind the bar. Kirby told Davis that the purchase of cocaine would cost $1,400 an ounce. This conversation was conducted in an open manner. Then Robert Strauss walked out from the back of the bar and asked Davis if Davis "had any hot cigarettes to sell." Davis said "they were all in the trunk." Robert Strauss followed Davis out to Davis' vehicle. In the trunk there were ten cartons of Camels and ten cartons of Marlboro Lights. Robert Strauss carried the cigarettes back into the bar in a box. Robert Strauss put the cigarettes up, went over to the cash register and obtained $100 which was given to Davis. The reference to putting the cigarettes up means that Robert Strauss took them to the storage room. Robert Strauss told Davis that he would buy more cigarettes if Davis would bring them to Robert Strauss. The transaction concerning the purchase of the cigarettes was made with no attempt to conceal the activity. Then Ferris came in and took over Kirby's assignment at the bar. Kirby then sat down next to Davis at the bar. They discussed the purchase of a key of coke, meaning a kilo of cocaine. They discussed that if that amount was broken down, the cost for an ounce would be $700. The purchase was to be made in Miami. This conversation was conducted openly. Davis and Kirby went outside and Davis gave Kirby $1,400 to purchase a smaller amount of cocaine. Kirby returned to the bar. Davis and Kirby then went to Davis' vehicle. Davis took the substance that had been offered as cocaine. This transaction took place after they drove away from the bar. Again, that substance was turned over to an agent with the DEA. On April 22, 1997, Davis called the bar and spoke to Kirby. They discussed the purchase of another ounce of cocaine for the next day. On April 23, 1997, Davis returned to the bar after arranging with Kirby, through a telephone call, to come to the bar. Kirby was tending the bar. Kirby and Davis discussed a cocaine deal. Kirby told Davis that basically all suppliers were sold out of cocaine. Kirby told Davis that some people were offering to sell for as much as $1,600 an ounce. This conversation took place at a little table next to the bar. Patrons were in the premises at that time. The conversation was held in a normal tone. Eventually Kirby told Davis that he had found someone that lives at the Gulf who could get an ounce of cocaine for $1,450. That price was agreed upon. After a person drove up, Kirby commented, "There's my man." At that moment Davis gave Kirby the money. Kirby counted the money. Kirby left the bar and returned. Kirby told Davis to go with Kirby to Kirby's van. They got in the van and drove around the block. Kirby gave Davis an ounce of a substance which was tendered as cocaine. That substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. Davis returned to the bar on April 24, 1997. He met with Kirby who was tending bar. They discussed the purchase of cocaine. Kirby said he had an ounce of cocaine to sell and asked Davis if he wanted to purchase the cocaine. Davis agreed to purchase the cocaine for $1,400. Davis gave $1,400 to Kirby across the counter. Kirby told Davis to follow him to a bathroom. In the bathroom Kirby handed a substance in aluminum foil to Davis, represented to be cocaine. The substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. On the same date, Kirby and Davis discussed making a trip to Miami to purchase cocaine, and what it would cost Davis if Kirby delivered the cocaine from Miami, as opposed to Davis and Kirby going to Miami to obtain the cocaine. A price of $32,000 for a kilo of cocaine was discussed. This conversation was held in an open manner. On April 25, 1997, the Tallahassee Police Department served a search warrant on the licensed premises looking for illegal drugs. Petitioner's agency was also involved in the search. During the search, underneath the bar on the right-hand side, an item was discovered, which through a field test revealed the presence of cocaine. The item was wrapped in tin foil. The tin foil was readily visible when standing behind the bar. In addition cigarettes were seized. The item that tested as cocaine in the field test was turned over to the resident agent in charge for the DEA. At the time the search was made on April 25, 1997, Petitioner was investigating the purchase of cigarettes from a non-wholesaler, as well as its interest in the sale of illegal narcotics. On that date, the Petitioner seized the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Respondent's employees. The cigarettes Davis sold had never had taxes remitted to the state of Florida based upon a wholesale transaction. Respondent identified that Kirby and Ferris were part- time bartenders who worked at night. Ferris also worked a Saturday day shift. Ordinarily a shift change to the night shift occurred at 6:00 p.m. Ferris had been a customer of the bar before being hired. Before being hired, Kirby was referred to Respondent by Respondent's friends. Respondent identified that Robert Strauss was more or less the supervisor in charge at the premises when the Respondent was not there. Robert Strauss cooked at the bar a couple of days a week. Robert Strauss was involved with purchasing supplies for the bar. Respondent indicated that Robert Strauss' duties in purchasing during the time in question involved the purchase of cigarettes. Beyond the time of the investigation described, within the last six months prior to the hearing, two employees had been dismissed for suspected drug use. This did not include Messrs. Ferris and Kirby. The dismissal of the other employees was made by Respondent. Respondent's day at the bar runs usually from 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Prior to the events described in the facts, Respondent did not have a policy for his establishment concerning activity involving narcotics. Subsequent to the investigation, there is a written policy prohibiting employee activities involving narcotics. Respondent has no written policies advising his employees what the employees should do if they observe persons engaging in illegal narcotic activities. Respondent says that he explains to his employees verbally that if anyone discusses narcotics at the bar "they are out." Respondent has video cameras to monitor activities in the bar. The manner in which Robert Strauss solicited Davis for the purchase of cigarettes, Davis sold the cigarettes, and Respondent's employees sold the cigarettes obtained from the SuperValue Warehouse, creates the inference of impropriety by Robert Strauss and other employees affiliated with Respondent's licensed premises. The inference of impropriety is to the exclusion of any other inference to be gained from the conduct. The inference is that the cigarettes were not part of ordinary commerce and had questionable origins. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for an ordinary law-abiding person to suspect that the cigarettes which Davis presented to Robert Strauss and others in the premises, as solicited by Robert Strauss, were stolen. Davis billed the cigarettes as outside the bounds of ordinary commerce when describing the cigarettes as "hot." Davis also identified that the cigarettes were being purchased at a price that was more than a good bargain. The price helped in creating the appearance that the cigarettes were not part of legitimate commerce. As stated, the substances purchased by Chesney on January 9 and 15, 1997, were cocaine. The substance found during the search of the premises on April 25, 1997, was cocaine.1
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of counts 1, 2, and 9 through 28, and finding that Respondent did not violate counts 2 through 8, and that imposes a penalty of revocation of license number 47-00190, series 4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1998.
