The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License Number D94-17752, which was issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective October 17, 1996, to October 17, 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Navarro Security. On February 11 and 12, 1997, Respondent was on duty at a security post, during the evening hours, at William Lehman car dealership located in Broward County, Florida.1 That car dealership was a client of Navarro Security. Respondent's duties at this security post included patrolling the premises in a motorized golf cart. Respondent was not permitted to sleep while on duty. On February 11, 1997, Respondent was found by Corey Targia, a supervisor (captain) employed by Navarro Security, to be asleep in his own vehicle at approximately 3:34 a.m. Respondent was supposed to be on duty at that time. Respondent did not wake up until Mr. Targia knocked on the window of the vehicle. On February 12, 1997, Respondent was again found by Mr. Targia to be asleep while he was on duty. On this occasion, Mr. Targia found Respondent at approximately 3:52 a.m. sleeping in a car owned by the dealership. A sign advertising the sale of the car was positioned in a manner to obscure Respondent's presence in the vehicle. Mr. Targia called by radio Mike Crutcher, another supervisor (lieutenant) employed by Navarro Security, and asked Mr. Crutcher come to the site with a camera. Mr. Crutcher arrived at the site and observed Respondent sleeping. Respondent awakened before Mr. Crutcher could photograph him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Licensed be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William H. Cochran, was certified by the Petitioner as a correctional officer on November 20, 1989, and was issued corrections certificate number 33-89-502-05, and at all times relevant hereto was a certified officer. The Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer I officer by the Department of Corrections, and assigned to the Charlotte Correctional Institution, a state correctional institution, in Port Charlotte, Florida. On or about February 17, 1990, the Respondent approached Ruth Rivera- Silva, another Correctional Officer I at the Charlotte County Correctional Institution, and engaged her in conversation. The Respondent initiated the conversation with casual, small talk, and then presented Officer Rivera-Silva with a business proposition. Officer Rivera-Silva and the Respondent knew each other, because they had gone through the academy together. The business proposition the Respondent made to Officer Rivera-Silva consisted of her assisting him in bringing marijuana into the Charlotte Correctional Institute for sale to inmates. The Respondent expressed a need for extra money for himself, and he wanted to help her obtain some extra money, because she was a divorced mother with two children. The Respondent had been approached by inmates Smith and Bass who requested his help in bringing marijuana into the institution to them. According to the Respondent's plan, he was supposed to meet with one of the inmate's friends and pick up the marijuana from her. The Respondent would then give the drugs to Officer Rivera-Silva, and she would bring in approximately two pounds of marijuana a week by carrying the marijuana into the institution in her lunch box. Respondent indicated that no one ever checked the contents of the lunch boxes. The lunch boxes were to be dropped off in the recreation department for inmates Smith and Bass to pick up. The Respondent speculated that he and Officer Rivera-Silva would each make approximately one thousand dollars per week. After the Respondent initially approached Officer Rivera-Silva in February 1990, requesting her assistance in this illegal plan, she immediately reported the details of the plan to Colonel Richardson of the CCI. The Charlotte County Sheriff's Office was contacted, and an investigation into the matter was initiated. An electronic recording devise was planted on Officer Rivera-Silva, and she had four additional conversations with the Respondent. The electronic bugging system allowed Deputy Juan Acosta, the lead investigator, to listen to the conversation between the Respondent and Officer Rivera-Silva, and at the same time record the conversations on audio tape. Deputy Acosta was present and listened to all four of these bugged conversations between the Respondent and Officer Rivera-Silva. In the last monitored conversation on February 24th, the Respondent indicated that evening he would receive a call at the Babe Ruth Field, meet with the contact lady, and meet with Officer Rivera-Silva the next morning as planned. Respondent was placed under close observation, and he was observed at the Babe Ruth Field, and, while there, he received and made a couple of phone calls. Then he returned to his residence. The next morning, the Respondent left his residence, and traveled in the direction of the correctional facility. As he pulled into the parking lot of the institution, Deputy Acosta and the other officers confronted him. A search of the car's interior was conducted, but no contraband was found. The Respondent was escorted into the administration building where an interview was conducted. Initially, the Respondent indicated that Deputy Acosta and the other officers had the wrong guy, and that they were making a mistake. Deputy Acosta played the taped conversations for the Respondent, then he said, "You got me, I'll tell you what you need to know." The Respondent stated that he was just saying those things, because he wanted to date Officer Rivera-Silva, and was trying to impress her. At the hearing, Respondent indicated that this plan was completely Officer Rivera-Silva's idea. The Respondent was not arrested, and was never criminally prosecuted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989) and that Respondent's certification be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1 - 32 Respondent's proposal findings of fact. Respondent did not file proposed findings as of the date of this order. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Dawn Pompey, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement PO Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Kevin Shirley, Esquire 126 East Olympia Avenue Suite 408 Punta Gorda, Florida Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's Florida Real Estate license should be disciplined because Respondent is guilty of and was found guilty of crimes which involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing for which he was confined in a state prison in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license No. 0463021 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 5, 1989, in Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the misdemeanors of prostitution and taking a minor in a vehicle with a malevolent intent, a local ordinance punishable as a misdemeanor. The Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to thirty days imprisonment and six months probation. On March 11, 1991 in the Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of petty theft. Respondent was found guilty of both counts and was placed on probation for six months to run consecutively on each count. Steven Pearce, Petitioner's investigator, spoke to Respondent about the nature of the charges alleged in the administrative complaint. Investigator Pearce made a series of calls to Respondent and during one of these calls, a discussion ensued relating to the complaint allegations filed against Respondent. During the second call which Investigator Pearce had with Respondent on June 25, 1991, a discussion was had regarding the petit theft charges and a series of other criminal charges which were filed against him. At the time of Respondent's written response to Investigator Pearce on June 12, 1991, he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County Jail for charges which he then contended that he was innocent. Specifically, he maintained in that letter as well as during the hearing that he was pulled into matters for which his son was involved and that he was in no manner responsible for the actions of his son. Respondent spent approximately forty-five days in the Hillsborough County Jail during 1989 at which time he made a no contest plea on October 5, 1989 because it would have taken approximately 21 more days for him to go to trial and he had, at that time, spent the maximum amount of time allowable for the charge for which he was being held. Prior thereto, Respondent had been incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail on a first degree murder charge where he remained for approximately 14 months and was thereafter released to Hillsborough County Jail. During his incarceration, Respondent's trial had been postponed approximately nine times and he repeatedly maintains that all of the allegations which he was being charged for dealt with activity engaged in by his son and "unbeknownst to" Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of having engaged in proscribed conduct within the purview of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes as alleged in the administrative complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida, license No. 0463021 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 4, 1994, the Petitioner filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1994, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him of its intention to deny his application. The sole stated ground for denial was described as "[f]ailure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j). You committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of yourself or another." The denial letter also made specific reference to the date of February 21, 1993, and specifically referred to criminal charges allegedly brought against the Petitioner on that date for battery and aggravated battery. With regard to the Respondent's basis for denial, the proof demonstrates that during the early afternoon of February 21, 1993, the Petitioner became involved in an argument with Jessica Favata, an adult female with whom he was acquainted. The intensity of the argument escalated and at one point the Petitioner physically pushed Ms. Favata. At that point a male friend of Ms. Favata, one Bradley Watson, injected himself into the argument. As the intensity of the argument between the Petitioner and Mr. Watson continued to increase, the Petitioner retrieved an aluminum baseball bat from his motor vehicle and began swinging the bat in the general direction of Mr. Watson. During the course of one of the swings of the bat, the Petitioner struck Ms. Favata on the hand with the bat. As a result of being struck by the bat, Ms. Favata's hand was visibly injured. During the course of the events described in the preceding paragraph neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were armed with any type of weapon. Similarly, neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the Petitioner.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 14, 1983, and November 19, 1981, and was issued certificate numbers 02-33918 and 502-868. Respondent is currently certified as a law enforcement officer and as a correctional officer by the Commission. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. On May 3, 1986, Respondent, Deputy McDonald, and their immediate supervisor Sergeant James Walkup were working a directed patrol in the south portion of Broward County, Florida. Each was in his own patrol car, but they were working as a group with the express purpose of conducting a routine harassment of known or suspected drug dealers or users in the vicinity. They spotted a rental car occupied by two black males parked in an open field in a residential neighborhood. The occupant of the vehicle in the driver's seat was Jimmy Fox, a reputed drug dealer. All three patrol cars pulled into the field behind the rental vehicle. Respondent "radioed" in that he had made a traffic stop. Neither McDonald nor Walkup radioed that they were on the scene to serve as back-up units. Deputy George Gechoff was working off-duty at the Home Depot on 58th Avenue in the west Hollywood area when he heard Respondent radio that he had made a traffic stop. Since Gechoff did not hear anyone radio that they were serving as back-up to Respondent, Gechoff drove to the location of the traffic stop which was just a few blocks away. When Gechoff arrived at the scene Respondent had already searched the front seat area of the rental vehicle and had asked Fox's permission to search the trunk. Initially, Fox refused consent to the search of the trunk of the rental vehicle. Gechoff and Fox knew each other. After Respondent assured Fox that Fox would not be arrested since the search was illegal and after Gechoff urged Fox to be cooperative, Fox consented to the request. The trunk of the car was opened, and Respondent and Gechoff began searching it. The Respondent found a pistol in the trunk and went to his patrol car to "run a check" on the gun. While Respondent was in is patrol car, Deputy Gechoff, who assisted in the search of the trunk, found an aspirin or "pill- type" bottle containing approximately 50 small objects. Although Walkup testified that the objects were square cubes of yellowish material, Gechoff testified that the objects were white chips of different sizes. At the time, Walkup, Gechoff, and Respondent each believed that the objects were "crack" cocaine. If the objects were indeed crack cocaine, each object would be a single dose of the drug, and each object would have a sale price ranging from $10 to $20. In respondent to his radio inquiry, Respondent was advised that he had a "hit" on the gun, which meant it was wanted in connection with a crime or that it had been previously reported as stolen. When Respondent communicated that information to his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Walkup, Gechoff handed Respondent the aspirin bottle. Walkup instructed Respondent to take both the firearm and the suspected cocaine and write up a "found property report." Respondent was concerned about writing a report for found property, rather than seized property, and suggested to Walkup that they simply turn the matter over to the State Attorney's Office. Walkup took the position that the property was illegally seized since there was no probable cause for the search of the vehicle and the search had taken place simply as part of an harassment operation. He instructed Respondent to report the property as "found property" and left the scene. When Respondent left the scene, he had with him both the confiscated firearm and the aspirin bottle with its contents. He remained concerned about being ordered to write a found property report, but knew he had to do something since he had already radioed in that he had recovered a firearm wanted by the Broward County sheriff's Office. On the spur of the moment, as he was driving through a wooded area near a rock pit, Respondent took the top off the bottle and threw it out the window scattering the contents as he threw away the bottle. Later that day Respondent wrote and signed an Event Report at the Broward County Sheriff's Office reporting that he had found a .44 Magnum and suspected cocaine off the roadway while on routine patrol. The firearm was turned in at the same time, and a property receipt was issued. No property receipt was issued for the suspected cocaine. Several weeks later, Sergeant Walkup received a telephone call from Fox concerning the incident on May 3. In response to that telephone call, Walkup retrieved and reviewed Respondent's report of the May 3 incident with Fox. Upon reviewing the report, Walkup became concerned with the apparent conflicts between the report's contents and his recollection of the events. He so notified his supervisor. On July 1, 1986, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Roger Lekutis of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Internal Affairs Unit. He admitted that after he drove away from the scene of the Fox "traffic stop" he threw the bottle which he believed contained cocaine "rocks" out the window of his patrol car. He told Lekutis that Walkup had instructed him to write a report of the incident as a "found property" report. He also admitted failing to turn over the suspected cocaine to an evidence custodian. No evidence was offered suggesting that Respondent disposed of the suspected cocaine in a manner different than throwing it out the window as he drove through the wooded area near the rock pit, and the Respondent's testimony in that regard is credited. Since this incident, Respondent has been reinstated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office but was not yet on the payroll by the time of the final hearing in this cause, since he was undergoing certain pre-employment certification and testing procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1989. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 88-4963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13-17, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4, 7, 11, 12, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all material times, respondent has held a registered Class "B" Security Agency License, No. B86-00092, a Class "DS" Security Officer School/or Training Facility License, No. DS90-00069, a Class "D" Security Officer License, No. D85-2333, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI88-00012, and a Class "MB" Manager Security Agency License, No. MB86-00105. At all pertinent times, respondent provided security services to various non-governmental clients in Bay County, Florida, and also furnished security services to its only governmental client, the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, more than 100 miles from respondent's offices. From January 21, 1991, to June 30, 1991, respondent employed J. C. Barnwell, Terrell Barnwell, Larry Burks, Michael Dicks, Robert Pompey and Darrell L. Smith, none of whom held security officer licenses. They all worked as security officers at the Federal Correctional Institution in Leon County, and did no other work for respondent.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Isler & Banks, P.A. P.O. Drawer 430 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Jim Smith, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-2 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission in 1981, as a law enforcement officer, Certification Number 113689, and at all time relevant, the certification was active. On February 25, 1993, the Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Palm Bay Police Department and was on duty during the relevant time period. Respondent had been a certified law enforcement officer for a period of sixteen (16) years in Nebraska and Florida. On February 25, 1993, Officer Thomas Krieger while on duty arrested a suspect on several out of state felony warrants. The warrants consisted of serious violent offenses and the suspect's criminal history showed a history of violence. The officer was concerned about the potential for violent actions by the prisoner. He contacted the dispatcher and requested assistance from another officer. Respondent was on duty and responded to the request to assist Officer Krieger. Respondent met him in the sally port at Police Headquarters. He assisted in the booking of the prisoner and placed him in Holding Cell E, one of five holding cells in the room. Officer Krieger went and sat at the booking table near the computer which was approximately 25 to 30 feet away from the holding cell. It took approximately twenty minutes of continuous writing for Officer Krieger to complete his report. Krieger could not see into the cell and did not hear the prisoner yelling or speaking from where he was sitting. He also could not hear Respondent very well when he spoke to the prisoner. Officer Renkens arrived during this time with an intoxicated female, who had been arrested for DUI. She was loud and abusive during the booking process and after being placed in a cell. The Booking Room area is acoustically unsound. The area is loud with constant noise from prisoners, officers, telephones, and other equipment. Many individuals were entering and exiting the holding cell area. There were also numerous telephone calls coming in during the relevant period. Dispatcher Lynn Bombriant observed Krieger's and Respondnet's prisoner on the TV monitor make obscene gestures and remarks as the female prisoner was walking through. She believed at the time that he was attempting to antagonize the female prisoner. Bombriant observed the prisoner grab his crotch and make obscene gestures and actions. Bombriant contacted Respondent several times and advised him that the actions being conducted by the prisoner were distracting and very crude in nature. She asked him to have the prisoner stop his crude behavior. Respondent walked up to the prisoner numerous times and advised him to sit down and cease his actions. The prisoner refused to comply. After numerous attempts to have the prisoner sit down and stop making obscene gestures and actions, Respondent advised him to step away from the door so he could enter the cell. The suspect refused after numerous requests. Respondent opened the trap door and sprayed a chemical agent on the individual, striking him on the left side of his face. This forced him back from the door. He then went over the sink in the cell and washed out his eyes and walked around in the cell. A number of minutes later Respondent entered the cell and handcuffed the prisoner. Upon entering the cell, Respondent made no other physical contact with the prisoner except to handcuff the individual. On February 25, 1993, there was a force continuum utilized by the Palm Bay Police Department which required that soft force be implemented after verbal commands were unsuccessful. Soft force is considered either the use of handcuffs, pain compliance holds, or chemical agents. There was no policy implemented by Palm Bay which required or set forth any guidelines for the use of chemical agents in the Booking Room until after February 25, 1993. Respondent completed a brief supplemental report concerning the incident which report was attached to Officer Kreiger's report. Although the supplemental report was hurriedly prepared, it did not contain material misrepresentations of fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (in part), 11, 13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 38. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 7, 9 (in part), 17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37. Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: pragraphs 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 (in part), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Rejected as subsumed irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 9 (in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Amy J. Bardill, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 George Turner, Esquire 932 South Wickham Road West Melbourne, Florida 32904 A. Leon Lowry, Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating security officers pursuant to chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Frank Giordano is licensed pursuant to section 493.6105, Florida Statutes, having been issued a Class "D" Security Officer License, number D95- 12548. From August 11, 1995, through September 16, 1995, Mr. Giordano was employed as a security officer by Ace Security in Lake Worth, Florida. During the times relevant to this proceeding, Mark Anthony Padgette was employed by Ace Security as a roving field supervisor. Mr. Padgette's duties included training and checking on security officers at their various posts. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Padgette was Frank Giordano's supervisor at Ace Security. On August 11, 1995, Mr. Giordano was assigned as a security officer by Ace Security to guard the premises of Integrated Health Services, a health care facility. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Mr. Padgette trained Mr. Giordano for the site by explaining to him his duties, showing him all entrances and exits, and identifying his assigned post. Mr. Padgette told Mr. Giordano that his assigned post was outside the building and that he was to patrol the grounds, especially the parking lot areas and areas where the entrances and exits were located. Mr. Giordano was told that he was to check in every hour at the nurses station and that he could use the bathroom inside the building. He was told specifically not to linger inside the building but to return immediately to his post in the parking lot. At 5:15 a.m. on August 12, 1995, Mr. Padgette went to Integrated Health Services to check on Mr. Giordano. He found Mr. Giordano sitting in the lobby of the facility. Mr. Padgette issued a verbal and written warning. At 4:17 a.m. on August 18, 1995, Mr. Padgette checked on Mr. Giordano at Integrated Health Services. Mr. Padgette located Mr. Giordano asleep in the lobby of the facility. He issued a verbal and written warning. At 5:20 a.m. on August 19, 1995, Mr. Padgette checked on Mr. Giordano at Integrated Health Services. Mr. Padgette found Mr. Giordano reading in the family waiting room inside the facility. At this time, Mr. Padgette emphasized to Mr. Giordano that his assigned post was located outside the building. Mr. Padgette issued a verbal and written warning. At 2:40 a.m. on August 20, 1995, Mr. Padgette checked on Mr. Giordano at Integrated Health Services. Mr. Padgette found Mr. Giordano watching television in the family waiting room inside the facility. Mr. Padgette issued a written warning and explained his post orders to Mr. Giordano. On September 16, 1995, Mr. Giordano was assigned to Bethesda Health City in Boynton Beach. This post was a very large, fenced construction site, and Mr. Giordano's post orders were to be visible on the site and to insure that no equipment or materials were stolen from the site. At 12:50 a.m., Mr. Padgette checked on Mr. Giordano at the Bethesda Health City post. Mr. Padgette found the gate open, but he could not find Mr. Giordano. Mr. Giordano arrived at the site approximately 10 minutes after Mr. Padgette and explained that he had driven to a gas station to go to the bathroom. The gas station was located approximately 3 and 1/2 miles from the construction site; portable toilets were available on the site. Mr. Padgette immediately relieved Mr. Giordano of duty, and Mr. Giordano's employment with Ace Security was terminated on September 16, 1995. The evidence is clear and convincing that, despite numerous warnings and reprimands, Mr. Giordano repeatedly left his assigned post while on duty and that, on at least one occasion, he fell asleep while on duty. Mr. Giordano's actions jeopardized the security of the premises he was assigned to guard and constitute negligence in carrying out his responsibilities as a security officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order finding Frank Giordano guilty of negligence in the practice of regulated activities as charged in Counts I through V of the Amended Administrative Complaint and revoking Mr. Giordano's Class "D" Security Officer license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO, 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 30th day of May 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security officers in this state. The Respondent, David L. Raymond, at the time in issue, did not hold a valid security officer's license. His licensing history reflected that his "D" license, 87-11386, expired on June 30, 1989, and his "D" license, 90-07877, was not issued until May 15, 1992. Therefore, at the time alleged in the Administrative Complaint for the commission of the misconduct cited herein, the Respondent did not possess a current security officer's license. On February 13, 1990, Detective Robert Voss was a policeman in uniform working for the City of Sunrise, Florida, and was dispatched by radio to proceed in his marked patrol car to the intersection of N.W. 64th Avenue and Sunset Strip, in Sunrise, to respond to a domestic disturbance complaint. The area in question is a mixed commercial/residential area. When detective Voss arrived at the scene, he pulled up behind a car which was lawfully parked just off the road and observed the Respondent and a white female outside the vehicle. He also noticed there were two children in the car and other individuals standing around observing. According to Officer Voss, he approached the Respondent and asked him what was going on, at which time the Respondent turned to him and was extremely abusive in his language stating to the officer such things as, "Fuck this." and "Get the fuck out of here." When Officer Voss asked him to lower his voice, Respondent continued with the verbal abuse. At that point Voss turned to the female involved and asked her what was going on. She responded that they were arguing over the custody of the children; that the Respondent, her estranged husband, wanted to take the children home with him. All during this time, Respondent continued swearing. Notwithstanding Respondent had been asked to lower his voice, he refused to do so and Officer Voss told him he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. At that point, Voss told Respondent to turn toward the patrol car and put his hands up on the roof, which Respondent did. When Voss went to place handcuffs on him, however, Respondent turned to his left and struck Voss on the side of the face with his right fist. At this point, Voss and Officer Kobayashi, also a Sunrise police officer, who had arrived at the scene in a separate vehicle, grabbed Respondent and placed him face down on the ground. When that was done, Respondent reached behind himself and grabbed the butt of Kobayashi's pistol, allegedly attempting to remove it from its holster. The officers were able to prevent this, however, and placed handcuffs on Respondent at which time they took him to the Broward County Jail. Officer Kobayashi was also in uniform at the time. It is unlikely Respondent's action was a serious attempt to get the weapon, however. Respondent presents a somewhat different story of the incident. He admits that Officer Voss came to the scene at the time he and his wife were involved in a verbal altercation outside the place where she had been living with her boyfriend. The parties were separated at the time and Respondent was upset because his wife was continually taking him to court over custody of the children. Respondent and his wife had been in a discussion for some period prior to the arrival of the police officers and the situation had been aggravated by the intercession of her boyfriend. Respondent claims he was talking with his children in the car when Voss came up. Respondent categorically denies having said, "Fuck you" to Voss. He claims instead he told Voss there was an argument going on after which Voss called in both Respondent's and the boyfriend's license tags for verification. After the boyfriend went inside the building, Respondent claims to have engaged in a dialogue with Voss for a period of time at which point, without any provocation, Voss claimed that Respondent hit him and put him up against the car. At this point, Kobayashi came up and both officers roughed him up, he alleges, to the point where Kobayashi had a choke hold on him and he was about to pass out. At this point, Respondent's father came up and told the officers to let him go. In response, allegedly, the officers told Respondent's father to get away or he, too, would be arrested. They then took Respondent to jail. While the officers may have used more force than absolutely necessary, it is found to be more reasonable to conclude that Respondent was disorderly in speech and deportment and struck out at Officer Voss in an attempt to free himself from the restraint in which he found himself. Respondent hired an attorney who negotiated for a non-adjudicatory resolution of the charge under which Respondent would plead nolo contendere and would be placed on probation with a provision for release after one year. Respondent claims, as does his attorney who testified in his behalf, that the negotiation was solely to avoid a record of conviction and to facilitate the removal of this case from the judge's docket. Respondent continues to deny having either struck Officer Voss or attempted to gain control of Officer Kobayashi's weapon, but it is found he struck Voss. From the evidence, it appears the entire matter was blown out of proportion. It is clear that when the officers approached the Respondent he was in a high state of upset. No doubt when Respondent failed to cease his verbal outburst he was placed under apprehension and in the course of the scuffle, it is likely that he struck Voss as alleged. However, it is also evident that the striking was without intent. As to the allegation involving the attempt to remove Kobayashi's weapon, again the evidence indicates it is unlikely Respondent seriously tried to do that in light of the relative positions of the parties. However, it cannot be overlooked that, regardless of counsel's statement of motive, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to battery, disorderly conduct, and an attempt to deprive an officer of his weapon, and while adjudication of guilt was withheld, the Court imposed probation for 18 months on the first offense and for 6 months each on the second and third offenses to run concurrently with the first period of probation. No evidence was presented regarding the Respondent's current or former moral history or character. The sole evidence of character is related to the instant incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case reprimanding David Lee Raymond for his established misconduct, imposing an administrative fine of $250.00, and placing his license on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Department. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of November, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-4446 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. Copies Furnished: Della M. Ragans, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Kayo E. Morgan, Esquire 432 N.E. Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL - 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
