The Issue Whether Respondent, Virginia Bryan Martin, is guilty of the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 16, 2007, and, if so, should her Florida Professional Educator's Certificate be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Professional Educator's Certificate No. 624273, covering the areas of educational media specialist, elementary education, middle grades integrated curriculum, family and consumer science, and exceptional student education. During all times material to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent was employed at Brandon Alternative School in the Hillsborough County School District. In the early morning hours of April 25, 2004, Respondent was arrested for DUI by Officer Michael Smith of the Lakeland Police Department. Officer Smith videotaped Respondent's erratic driving and the following police stop. The videotape and testimony revealed that Respondent was driving her automobile while under the influence of alcohol. Although initially denied, Respondent acknowledged coming from a bar. She was abusive and threatening to the officer and her daughter, who arrived on the scene of Respondent's arrest. Respondent's conduct was, in short, reprehensible. On November 5, 2004, Respondent was charged with DUI incidental to a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Lakeland, Florida. Both vehicles were damaged to such an extent that they were not drivable. Respondent was charged with careless driving, in addition to DUI. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that prior to the accident, she had drunk so much that she was "feeling no pain." In addition, she minimized the accident, denied fault, and denied that she had been charged with a driving infraction. The November 5, 2004, DUI accident occurred while the legal resolution of the April 25, 2004, DUI was still pending. Respondent's judgment and veracity are subject to serious question. Respondent pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving on the April 25, 2004 DUI. On the November 25, 2004 DUI, she pled nolo contendere. The court found her guilty of DUI. She was sentenced to a treatment program, served 25 days in jail, paid $732.50 in fines and costs, and attended a DUI and Victim Impact Class. Nothing offered by Respondent as mitigating her behavior is accepted as credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, John L. Winn, Commissioner of Education, issue a final order finding that: Count 1 be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of Counts 2 and 3; and Respondent's Florida Professional Educator's Certificate be placed on probation for 24 months, during which time she will be subject to rehabilitative conditions, as determined appropriate by the EPC. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Edward Gay, Esquire 1516 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by James H. Peterson, Il, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, First Coast CIDR LLC, be granted a license for the sale of automobiles of the line-make Dodge (DODG) at 10979 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida 32225, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed August 6, 2010 3:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this Yin, of August 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, L A. FORD, LES Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of August 2010. . . Vinayak, Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: C. Everett Boyd, Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Benjamin C. Moore, Esquire St. Denis & Davey, P. A. 1300 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James H. Peterson, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Hernandez is a certified commercial driving school instructor employed by Easy Method Auto Driving School. The Respondent is the owner of a 1980 AMC motor vehicle, serial number AOC435C103790, which he uses to instruct students in the operation of a motor vehicle, in order to obtain a drivers license. The Respondent was issued commercial driving school registration number 1888-2, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, for the aforesaid vehicle which expired on March 1, 1983. Due to the Respondent's failure to insure that necessary insurance documentation was forwarded to the Petitioner Department in a timely fashion, the Respondent did not receive a new vehicle registration card until March 8, 1983. Between the time that his old commercial driving school vehicle registration expired and the receipt of the new vehicle registration on March 8, 1983, the Respondent used his vehicle to teach driving to students. On March 4, 1983, Driver License Examiner Maritza Contaris gave a driving test to one of Respondent's students in Respondent's AMC vehicle. Upon examining the commercial driving school vehicle registration, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, displayed in the car, she noticed that the expiration date appeared to have been altered. She brought this to the attention of another Driver License Examiner, Elizabeth Lopez. When Elizabeth Lopez examined the registration, she observed that the date appeared to have been altered and in turn, brought this to the attention of her supervisor, Mary Lou Karner. Mary Lou Karner requested the Respondent to step into her office where she confronted him with the apparently altered registration. Gail Shelow, another Driver License Examiner, was a witness to this conversation. The Respondent admitted that he knew the expiration date of the registration had been altered and stated that this had occurred because he had not yet received a new certificate from the Petitioner. An examination of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 clearly reveals that the registration has been altered by changing the expiration date from March 1, 1983 to March 11, 1983, by adding a "l". The Respondent altered his commercial driving school registration card which was required to be kept in the corner of the windshield of the Respondent's vehicle in order to continue using said vehicle pending receipt of a new vehicle registration. The Respondent's assertion that the registration must have been altered by driving school personnel, is not credible in light of the Respondent's admission to Karner and Shelow when confronted with the alteration, that he knew the registration had been altered and that this had been done because a new registration had not yet arrived. The alternation by the Respondent of the registration card, because of a lack of adequate insurance coverage, demonstrates a lack of good character on the part of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order revoking the commercial driving instructor's certificate of the Respondent Jorge Hernandez. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jorge Hernandez 1234-13th Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Paul Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Butterworth Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based on his sex and race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2003); and (b) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by retaliating against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male. He began working as a truck driver for Respondent on May 29, 2002. Mike Helms, Petitioner's supervisor, was responsible for hiring Respondent's truck drivers. During the year and a half that Mr. Helms worked for Respondent, 80 to 90 percent of the truck drivers hired were black. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he repeatedly requested Respondent's mechanics to repair the leak in his truck cab beginning in August 2002. Petitioner stated that Respondent's mechanics did not repair the truck cab until sometime after August 2003 when he was not working and a white female truck driver was driving his truck. Petitioner's allegations of disparate treatment involving the repair of the truck have not been considered here because the record does not reflect that they were raised in Petitioner's original or amended complaint or during FCHR's subsequent investigation. Because the allegations were not raised in either of Petitioner's complaints, FCHR never considered them, which would have allowed consideration in the contested hearing. Petitioner also testified that Respondent did not enforce the no-smoking policy in the driver's lounge until Mr. Helms became ill with a heart condition. The allegations that Mr. Helms dismissed Petitioner's complaints without explanation prior to that time were not included in Petitioner's original or amended complaint. There is no record evidence that Petitioner ever raised an issue involving the no-smoking policy during FCHR's investigation or that FCHR ever considered Respondent's alleged failure to enforce the no-smoking policy, which would have allowed consideration in the contested hearing. Respondent provided its truck drivers with radio/ telephones so that they could communicate with each other and with the office. Each driver had an assigned radio/telephone that he or she used every day. Each night the drivers would leave their telephones in an unsecured area of the truck office that was accessible to all employees. Typically, each telephone was programmed to identify incoming calls by the number of the unit making the call. In other words, the unit number of the person initiating the call would appear on the recipient's screen. However, the recipient's telephone could be programmed to show the name of the incoming caller instead of his or her unit number. On February 17, 2003, Petitioner was using the telephone usually assigned to him. During the day, he noticed that the word "nigger" was programmed into his internal telephone directory. Petitioner made this discovery when he scrolled through his internal telephone directory to place a call to another unit. Petitioner realized that someone had programmed his telephone to show the racial slur when unit 12 called him. Unit 12 was an extra phone, used by the drivers when their phones were not working properly. Therefore, the person who programmed the racial slur into Petitioner's assigned telephone did not know necessarily which driver would be using unit 12 on February 17, 2003. It follows that the driver who used unit 12 on February 17, 2003, might not have known that the derogatory name would appear on Petitioner's screen when unit 12 contacted Petitioner. Petitioner first checked with a couple of drivers who verified that their internal telephone directories were not programmed to identify unit 12 as "nigger." Petitioner concluded that he was the only target of the epithet. Petitioner then called unit 12/"nigger" and discovered that Ed Wight was using the spare telephone that day. Petitioner believed that only a few drivers knew how to program names into an internal telephone directory. He assumed that Mr. Wight was responsible for tampering with his telephone. Petitioner waited to confront Mr. Wight at Respondent's pit. Petitioner put the radio in Mr. Wight's face and asked him if he had programmed the name in the telephone. Petitioner told Mr. Wight that he did not "play that way" and did not appreciate it.1/ Next, Petitioner drove his truck into Respondent's parking lot at a high rate of speed. Mr. Helms, who was standing outside, feared the truck would not stop before it struck him. After Petitioner's truck slid to a stop, he emerged yelling and screaming. Petitioner then threw his telephone at Mr. Helms. Mr. Helms did not understand why Petitioner was so upset until Petitioner showed Mr. Helms the racial slur in Petitioner's internal telephone directory. Petitioner then got into his truck and sped away. Mr. Helms later learned that Petitioner had confronted Mr. Wight at the pit, accusing him of programming the racial slur into Petitioner's telephone. In the meantime, Mr. Helms instructed Petitioner to go home and not to return to work until Mr. Helms called him. When Petitioner returned to work, he met with Mr. Helms and Mr. Wight. During the meeting, Petitioner apologized to Mr. Wight for confronting him. Mr. Helms advised Petitioner that he was suspended for two days for his conduct toward Mr. Wight and for driving into the parking lot in an unsafe manner. There was no evidence that Mr. Wight was responsible for the racial slur. Therefore, Mr. Wight was not disciplined. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that he does not know who programmed the racial slur into his telephone. He acknowledged that no one at work ever called him by that name again. Petitioner testified that he has never heard Mr. Helms or anyone else in a position of authority at Respondent's place of business make a racially derogatory comment in his presence. Respondent took appropriate steps to ensure that future racial slurs could not be programmed anonymously into the telephones. Specifically, Mr. Helms padlocked the doors that led to the room where the telephones were stored when they were not in use. This was inconvenient for Mr. Helms because he had to be at the office every time a driver picked up or returned a telephone. Nevertheless, Mr. Helms knew it was important to secure the telephones to prevent any recurrence of the problem experienced by Petitioner. Mr. Helms did not believe that a driver would admit to being responsible for the racial slur. Therefore, he did not interview all of the drivers. Instead, Mr. Helms spoke to a couple of drivers, asking them to come forward with any information that might reveal the identity of the guilty person. Mr. Helms hoped the drivers he talked to would cooperate by sharing information circulating among the employees. For these reasons, Mr. Helms considered his investigation to be ongoing. However, neither Mr. Helms nor any other member of Respondent's management team ever found out who was responsible for the racial slur. Respondent did not conduct any special meeting to educate the drivers about Respondent's intolerance of racial discrimination. Respondent's employee handbook clearly prohibits any type of racial discrimination, including but not limited to, "racial and ethnic slurs, jokes or other derogatory remarks about or directed toward minority groups." Respondent required all employees to acknowledge that they have received and read the employee handbook. Petitioner signed the employee acknowledgement on January 10, 2003. The handbook states that failure to comply with safety rules is an offense that may subject an employee to discipline. The handbook also states that an employee may be discharged for threatening another employee or showing disrespect for a supervisor. On May 1, 2003, approximately two and a half months after the telephone incident, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of crew chief. Mr. Helms made the decision to promote Petitioner. As crew chief, Petitioner was responsible for leading a group of drivers and was eligible for a monthly bonus in the amount of $250.00 if no accidents or traffic violations occurred during the month. Petitioner resigned his position as crew chief in August 2003. He made the decision to step down as crew chief because he did not believe the compensation was sufficient. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he believed Mr. Helms treated four specifically-named male drivers more favorably than Petitioner. Petitioner testified that three of these drivers were black males and one was a white male. Petitioner did not include allegations of Mr. Helm's alleged favorable treatment of the four male drivers in his original or amended complaint. There is no record evidence that FCHR investigated or considered these allegations, which would have allowed consideration in the contested hearing. On October 1, 2003, Petitioner hauled a load of dirt to Respondent's dump. The person responsible for telling drivers where to dump and for pulling them out when they got stuck in the mud was David Cochran, a white male. On this occasion, Petitioner followed Mr. Cochran's instructions and got stuck. Because Mr. Cochran ignored Petitioner's request for assistance in getting his truck out of the mud, Petitioner called Mr. Helms to report that Mr. Cochran was not providing assistance. After waiting for 40 to 45 minutes, Petitioner's crew chief, Tommy Bennett (a black male), and another driver, Leonard Glover (a white male) came by to speak to Petitioner. Petitioner explained that he was waiting for Mr. Cochran to pull his truck out of the mud. Mr. Glover then hooked his truck to Petitioner's truck and freed Petitioner's truck from the mud. Approximately one half hour later, Petitioner returned to the dump. He saw a white female truck driver stuck in the same location. Mr. Cochran immediately pulled her truck from the mud. At this point, Petitioner decided that Respondent was discriminating against him. First, he called a television station. Next, he called FCHR regarding the process of filing a complaint. He then called Vicki Goodman, Respondent's director of human resources, requesting documentation regarding the February 17, 2003, telephone incident. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Goodman about the incident with Mr. Cochran. When Ms. Goodman inquired why Petitioner wanted the documents, he responded that he was dissatisfied with Ms. Goodman's and Mr. Helms' response to the telephone incident. Ms. Goodman advised Respondent that there was no information about the telephone incident other than as discussed with Petitioner eight months before. She also told him he was not entitled to a copy of the report of that incident. Ms. Goodman then inquired whether Petitioner was concerned about something else that was occurring in the workplace. Petitioner responded by saying, "I really don't want to talk about it right now. You'll find out soon enough." During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he told Ms. Goodman, "[s]omeone from FCHR would be contacting her soon." In papers submitted to FCHR, Petitioner claimed he responded to Ms. Goodman's inquiry by stating that "[s]omeone would be contacting her in the near future in reference to the information that [he] was requesting.” Petitioner's testimony that he informed Respondent on October 1, 2003, that he was filing a complaint with FCHR is not persuasive. On October 5, 2003, Petitioner signed a written Charge of Discrimination. He filed the charge with FCHR on October 7, 2003. In the meantime, Mr. Helms received a complaint from a female truck driver, Tina Pincumbe, on October 6, 2003. The complaint involved allegations of sexual harassment by Petitioner toward Ms. Pincumbe and other female truck drivers.2/ Upon hearing Ms. Pincumbe's complaint, Mr. Helms referred her to Ms. Goodman. He made the referral because he felt Ms. Pincumbe would be more comfortable talking with another female. Ms. Pincumbe went to Ms. Goodman's office and made a statement that was reduced to writing. During the interview, Ms. Goodman told Ms. Pincumbe that it was important for other women who were uncomfortable with the way Petitioner was treating them to come forward. Later on October 6, 2003, Janice Simpson voluntarily visited Ms. Goodman's office. Ms. Simpson also signed a written statement, accusing Petitioner of sexual harassment. On October 7, 2003, Sheila Nichols, a female truck driver, was working light duty in the office. Ms. Goodman approached Ms. Nichols as part of her investigation. Ms. Nichols subsequently signed a written statement containing allegations of unwanted advances by Petitioner. On October 7, 2003, Cathie Corrie, a female truck driver, approached Mr. Helms with allegations about Petitioner's unwanted advances. Mr. Helms referred Ms. Corrie to Ms. Goodman. On October 8, 2003, Ms. Corrie signed a statement alleging sexual harassment by Petitioner. On October 8, 2003, Ms. Goodman interviewed Mr. Helms and several male truck drivers. On October 9, 2003, Ms. Goodman interviewed Petitioner, who denied all allegations of sexual harassment in a written statement. Respondent placed Petitioner on administrative leave pending completion of the sexual harassment investigation. Based on her investigation, Ms. Goodman concluded that the allegations of sexual harassment by the four females had merit. She completed a written report and recommended that Behzad (Steve) Ghazvini, Respondent's owner, discipline Petitioner. Mr. Ghazvini and Mr. Helms met with Petitioner either October 10, 2003, or October 13, 2003.3/ During the meeting, Mr. Ghazvini informed Petitioner that he was discharged from employment for violating Respondent's policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Mr. Ghazvini terminated Petitioner's employment based on the similarity of the sexual harassment complaints by the female truck drivers, Ms. Goodman's judgment that the women were telling the truth, and out of concern that Respondent would be morally and legally responsible if Petitioner harmed the female employees. When Mr. Ghazvini made the decision to fire Petitioner, neither he nor anyone on Respondent's management team were aware that Petitioner had contacted FCHR to file a discrimination complaint. Respondent received notice about the discrimination complaint for the first time on October 15, 2003. The next two truck drivers that Respondent hired after terminating Petitioner were Troy Rowells, who was hired on October 21, 2003, and Darrell Butler, who was hired on October 22, 2003. Both men are black.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of law, it is ORDERED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2004. END NOTES 1/ Mr. Wight did not testify at the hearing. Testimony that Mr. Wight denied programming the racial slur into Petitioner's telephone is inadmissible hearsay. 2/ Neither Ms. Pincumbe nor any of the other female truck drivers testified at the hearing. Any reference here to their allegations of sexual harassment is inadmissible hearsay except to show Respondent's reaction to the complaints. 3/ The record is not clear whether Respondent met with Petitioner to terminate his employment on Friday, October 10, 2003, or Monday, October 13, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vicki Goodman Sandco, Inc. 2811 Industrial Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Craig J. Brown, Esquire Brown & Associates, L.L.C. 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian S. Duffy, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 6816 Southpoint Parkway No. 500 (32216) Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be licensed as an independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed: Petitioner applied for a motor vehicle dealer's license for a dealership to be operated at 2401 Central Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. The application was denied by the Department because it appears the applicant has no experience in the motor vehicle business and, in fact, applied for the license to allow an individual by the name of Lloyd Blocker to operate and have continued involvement in the motor vehicle business. Petitioner was aware at the time of his application that Mr. Blocker had been denied a motor vehicle license in Florida in February 1994 and had been convicted of a felony in Alaska involving the unlawful rolling back of odometers in motor vehicles. In addition, Mr. Rinier was aware that the Department of Motor Vehicles would not allow Mr. Blocker to hold a license to deal in motor vehicles in Florida. Mr. Rinier and Mr. Blocker have an ongoing business dealing with the sale of motor vehicles. Mr. Rinier knows and knew at all times pertinent hereto that Mr. Blocker could not operate such a business on his own. The Department of Motor Vehicles contends that Mr. Blocker cannot operate or be involved in any facet of the motor vehicle business in any capacity. If Mr. Rinier were to provide written assurances that Mr. Blocker would not be involved in any way with a business operated under a license if issued, it would issue a license, assuming Mr. Rinier were otherwise qualified for licensure. Mr. Rinier is unwilling to provide that assurance in writing. However, Petitioner contends his sole desire is to make money from the operation of a dealership. If the license were issued, ownership of the business would be and remain in the Petitioner's name. He had already paid lease costs and all other costs relating to the business, and he will not operate it without Mr. Blocker's participation in some form. The present relationship with Mr. Blocker involves sale of the buildings where the dealership would operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying a motor vehicle dealer license to Petitioner, Harvey G. Rinier. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Waller, Esquire John L. Waller, P.A. 467 Second Avenue, North _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Gabrielle L. A. Taylor, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Affiliated of Florida, Inc. is engaged in the wholesale distribution of food and non-food items for the supermarket industry. The Respondent's main warehouse and offices are located in Tampa, Florida. The Respondent currently employs approximately 54 drivers. The drivers are responsible for the daily delivery of merchandise to various locations in Florida and Georgia. The Petitioner, Willie Hudson (a black male), was hired by the company as a driver trainee on March 18, 1985. Ray Scott (black male) a dispatcher for Respondent, and Willie Robinson (black male), Director of Security, were acquainted with Petitioner prior to his employment with Respondent and both recommended that he be hired. Scott also performs personnel interviews, recommends the hiring of all drivers, and supervises new drivers during their training period. When hired, all drivers are required to complete an initial training period of approximately one to two weeks. During this training period, drivers are assigned to ride with a full time driver trainer in order to become familiar with Respondent's practices and procedures. During Petitioner's employment the driver trainers were Leroy Johnson (black male) and John Flipowitz (white male). The alternate driver trainers were Relford Cooper (black male) and Steve Smith (white male). One of the driver trainee's responsibilities is to learn the company's system of preparing and submitting Merchandise Adjustment Tickets (MATs). If a driver makes a delivery and there is a shortage or damage, a MAT is filled out. The MATs must be filled out by the driver at the delivery location and submitted to Respondent's transportation department. The preparation and submission of MATs are necessary for the company to maintain accurate delivery records and are critical to the orderly operation of Respondent's warehouse and merchandise delivery business. The driver trainees are initially instructed by their assigned driver trainer as to how to prepare and submit the MATs. At the end of the training period, driver trainees are given a brief test by the company to ascertain whether they are capable of adequately preparing the MATs. The test consists of hypothetical situations in which a MAT would need to be utilized. The trainees must respond by filling out the MAT correctly. Once the test is passed and the driver trainer is satisfied that all other procedures have been learned by the trainee, the training period is terminated. The new driver is then allowed to make deliveries by himself. Another responsibility of the drivers, covered in the training process, involves the Respondent's system of accounting for trucks and other equipment which leave and return to the premises. A log sheet is kept at the security office that indicates, among other things, when equipment is taken out and brought back in. It is the driver's responsibility to go to the security office and complete the log sheets at the appropriate times. Driver trainees are instructed as to the procedures which must be undertaken in this regard. The Respondent requires that its drivers be punctual and display a positive attitude. Drivers must report to work on time so that merchandise is delivered promptly and must maintain a positive attitude while representing the company during deliveries. The Petitioner was initially assigned to work with driver trainer Relford Cooper. Toward the end of Petitioner's two week training period, Relford Cooper spoke with Raymond Scott and informed him that Petitioner seemed unable to properly fill out the MATs and that Petitioner had a "bad attitude." During the same period Willie Robinson, director of security, spoke with Scott and complained that Petitioner repeatedly failed to properly fill out the equipment log sheets as he was required to do. Scott spoke directly with Petitioner and explained to him how to complete the MATs and instructed Petitioner that the log sheets needed to be properly filled out and that if he had any questions he was to speak with Willie Robinson. At the end of the two week training period, Petitioner took the MAT test and failed it. No other driver had ever failed this test. Scott talked to Petitioner about the situation, and Petitioner explained that he did not think he was given enough time to fill out the MATs, and that he was not properly trained on how to fill them out. Scott decided to give Petitioner another chance by re- assigning him to another driver trainer, Jack Flipowitz, (white male). For the next two weeks, the Petitioner worked with Flipowitz as driver trainer. During this two week training period, Flipowitz went to Scott and complained that the Petitioner seemed unable to complete the paperwork, appeared to have an "attitude problem," apparently resented being trained by Flipowitz and would not take any instruction from him. Scott spoke with Petitioner and Petitioner said that he knew how to complete the MATs, but could not do so with "someone standing over his shoulder." Scott then talked to Flipowitz and told him to make sure that Petitioner had ample time to complete the forms. Scott also told Flipowitz to "back off" while Petitioner completed the MATs and perhaps return to the truck so that Petitioner would not feel so pressured. Shortly after the meeting, the Petitioner and Flipowitz made a delivery to Store 192. The customer at Store 192 wanted to return two cases of merchandise which was scheduled for delivery. Flipowitz gave the MAT to Petitioner to complete. Flipowitz then went out to the truck to allow Petitioner the opportunity to complete the form on his own. When Flipowitz returned from the truck, approximately 45 minutes later, he found that the Petitioner had not made any entries on the MAT. Flipowitz informed Scott of the incident which occurred at Store 192. Scott confronted Petitioner and Petitioner told him that he had "his own way of doing things" and that he wanted to fill the forms out at home. Scott informed the Petitioner that the forms needed to be completed at the store. At that point, Scott recommended that Petitioner be discharged. Petitioner was thereafter terminated on April 18, 1985, approximately four weeks after being hired. The driver training process employed by Respondent is informal and individualized. However, Relford Cooper and John Filpowitz provided Petitioner with substantially the same training and instruction given to all other driver trainees assigned to them. Of the 54 drivers employed by Respondent, 15 are black.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint and the petition for relief filed by Mr. Willie Hudson, Jr. In addition, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's request for attorney's fees be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of June, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne L. Helsby, Esguire 201 S. Orange Avenue Barnett Plaza, Suite 740 Orlando, Florida 3280 Willie Hudson, Jr. 11705 Park Orchard Circle Apartment #3 Tampa, Florida 33612 Affiliated of Florida, Inc. 1102 N. 28th Street Tampa, Florida 33605 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Rnox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Betsy Howard, Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240, Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 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. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15, 16 and 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, and 18.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent Santiago Baez, held commercial driving instructor certificate card number 6498 issued by petitioner, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver Licenses (Division). Baez who is fifty-eight years old, has been an instructor for at least eight years and was last employed at the Fajardo Driving School in Hialeah, Florida. Acting upon a tip received on July 14, 1986 from an informant that a driving instructor at Fajardo Driving School could obtain fraudulent drivers' licenses, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) undertook an investigation of the Division's driver license examination facility in Hialeah, Florida to ascertain if such licenses were being fraudulently issued by Division personnel. To assist in the investigation, the FDLE employed the services of a paid informant named Orlando Zirio. He was instructed to call "Jorge" at a particular telephone number and attempt to obtain a Florida driver's license. In actuality Jorge was the respondent. After telephoning respondent, Zirio and respondent agreed to meet on August 8 in the parking lot of the La Fonda Restaurant on West 60th Street in Hialeah. The restaurant shared a parking lot with the Division's driver license examination facility. Pursuant to instructions from the FDLE, Zirio told Baez that he was a drug smuggler, that he had lost all identification documents, and that he needed a Florida driver's license with a name different from his own to evade law enforcement officials. Zirio apparently had no luck with respondent that day. A series of meetings between Zirio and Baez took place during the next few weeks with Zirio repeatedly asking Baez to help him procure a driver's license. During such meetings, the FDLE orchestrated all of Zirio's communications with Baez. At some point in their meetings, Zirio told Baez he only had one identification card issued by the City of Key West. When Baez informed Zirio that he must have at least two identification documents to obtain a driver's license, Zirio replied he could not obtain the necessary documents. Zirio was then told to meet one Felix Aravjo who could provide false identification documents. After obtaining a Puerto Rican birth certificate and an American social security card in the name of Orlando Perez from Aravjo, Zirio met again with Baez on August 12 in the restaurant parking lot and handed the two identification documents to Baez. The two then entered the examination facility. With the assistance of a Division license examiner named Peralta, Zirio was issued a driver's license under the name of Orlando Perez. For their services, respondent received $250 and Peralta and Aravjo were each paid $300. Zirio was compensated $500 plus expenses by the FDLE for his undercover activities. Baez was arrested by FDLE agents on August 12, the day the license was issued by Peralta. He was charged with violating Subsection 322.212(2), Florida Statutes, which prohibits certain unlawful acts in relation to a driver's license. After being given a statement of his rights, Baez voluntarily answered in Spanish a series of questions posed by FDLE agents Valdes and Ventura. The interview was tape recorded by Valdes. It was later transcribed into English and reduced to writing by an unknown person. However, Agent Valdes reviewed the transcript and stated it accurately represented the questions asked and answers given during the interview. Baez later pled nolo contendere to criminal charges in September. Adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court. Unlike Peralta and Aravjo, Baez was not incarcerated or placed on probation, but was merely required to cooperate with officials in any further proceedings. Baez desires to continue as a driving instructor since it is the only livelihood that he knows. He has a pending job offer as an instructor if his license is reactivated. He did not deny that he committed the illicit conduct, was arrested and pled nolo contendere but stated that he agreed to help Zirio only after Zirio had made repeated requests for his assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is Recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Rules 15A- 2.09(2)(a) and 15A-2.11(1)(j) Florida Administrative Code, and that his commercial driving instructor certificate card be suspended for one year from date of the emergency suspension. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of October, 1986.
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly denied Respondent's application for the renewal of his Commercial Driving School License No. 1719, and Teaching Certificate No. 4531.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, Petitioner's proposed memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. 2/ Respondent, Joshua Logan, during times material, was the owner/operator of Logan's Streamline Driving School in West Palm Beach, Florida, beginning in 1970. (Tr. 52) Respondent's most recent Commercial Driving School License (No. 1719) and Teaching Certificate (No. 4531) both expired on June 1, 1981. (Tr. 6) On May 18, 1981, Respondent applied to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (herein Department) for renewal of the above referred license and Teaching Certificate. Prior thereto, on or about May 14, 1981, the Department, through its staff, had instructed Respondent that he should contact the Department's agent, J. F. Hayes, at the West Palm Beach Drivers' License office, to arrange for the inspection of his school facilities before his license and certificate could be renewed. On approximately June 1, 1981, Respondent, via a telephone communique with John F. Hayes, District Supervisor, Palm Beach District, Region IV, requested that his renewal applications be held in abeyance pending completion of remodeling of his school building. The Department, pursuant to that communique, held Respondent's renewal applications in abeyance and considered them to be incomplete. Respondent was not told by agents of Petitioner that he could continue to engage in the business of conducting a driving school when his license/certificate expired. The Department issued an order dated August 27, 1981, prohibiting the Respondent from operating as a commercial driving instructor since his school license and teaching certificate both expired on June 1, 1981. On September 29, 1981, Levi Dixon completed an application for a license to conduct a commercial driving school under the name Logan's Streamline Driving School. Attached to that application were receipts, lesson plan forms and other contractual agreements which had been previously utilized by the Respondent. Respondent never renewed his request for an inspection with Supervisor Hayes. Don H. Keirn, Chief, Driver Improvement Bureau for Petitioner, regulates programs related to problem drivers. Chief Keirn has been the bureau chief for driver improvement for approximately twelve (12) years and also is in charge of regulating driving schools. As part of his duties, he inspects vehicles, making certain that they are properly equipped with dual controls, pass safety inspections and bear signs legible to the driving public. Rule 15A- 2.07, Florida Administrative Code. Chief Keirn reviewed the application to change the ownership of the Respondent's driving school during October of 1981. Chief Keirn had received no advance notification from Respondent of any plans (of Respondent) to change the ownership of the school. John F. Hayes, District Supervisor of the Palm Beach District (Region IV) makes periodic checks of commercial driving schools in the Palm Beach district. During the summer of 1981, Respondent advised Supervisor Hayes that, on April 14, 1980, he gave a behind-the-wheel driving lesson to Alzora Washington, in her own vehicle, rather than in a dual-control vehicle approved by the Department, which lesson resulted in Ms. Washington's car crashing through a fence and into a neighbor's home. (Testimony of Respondent, Ms. Washington; Tr. 18, 19, 38 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) Respondent caused to be placed, in a local weekly newspaper, an advertisement offering driving instructions during October and November, 1981. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5) Also, on November 10, 1981, Respondent gave instructions to Geraldine Wilder White in preparation for her to take the written portion of the driver's license exam to obtain a restricted driver's license. Ms. White paid Respondent a $40.00 fee for the driving instruction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Tr. 20- 24, 40-48 and Composite Exhibit 5) Sometime during the period in which Respondent requested Petitioner to postpone the inspection of his school, Petitioner learned of Respondent's actions as relates to his giving a driving lesson to Ms. Washington on April 14, 1980. Respondent, Joshua A. Logan, is a 56-year-old male who has custody of his three (3) children. Respondent is employed full time as a professional teacher by the Office of Community Mental Health. Respondent has had no prior charges brought against him by the Petitioner. Nor has he been previously charged with violations of any of the Department's rules. 3/ Respondent was therefore of the opinion that by advising Supervisor Hayes of the accident in which he was involved with Ms. Washington, Petitioner would place him on probation for giving a driving lesson in an unapproved vehicle. Respondent executed an answer to a civil suit initiated by counsel for Ms. Washington as a result of the automobile accident referred to hereinabove. Respondent also filed a counter-claim to Ms. Washington's claim and admits to having made several mistakes in both the answer and the counter-claim respecting damages and claims for such damages. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department deny Respondent's application for renewal of his school license Number 1719 and Teaching Certificate Number 4531. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: Respondent holds a license issued by Petitioner which permits it to engage in the business of a motor vehicle dealer at 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C, Hialeah Gardens, Florida. On Friday, September 9, 1988, during normal business hours, Karen Reyes, who is employed by Petitioner as a License and Registration Inspector, visited this location to attempt to conduct an annual inspection of Respondent's records. The doors to the warehouse where the business was supposed to be located were closed and locked and no one was around the dealership. Reyes left a note requesting that a representative of the dealership contact her. She then-departed. Reyes returned to the location on Tuesday, September 20, 1988. Although it was mid-morning, the warehouse doors were closed and locked and there was no one present. Before departing, Reyes left a second note asking that she be contacted by someone from the dealership. The following day Reyes attempted to telephone the dealership. No one answered the phone, however, when she called. Reyes reported her findings to her supervisor. As a result, on October 20, 1988, Respondent's President, Javier F. Rodriquez, was sent a letter in which he was advised that Petitioner proposed to revoke Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license on the ground that Respondent had closed and abandoned its licensed location. The letter further advised that Respondent had the right to request a formal hearing before any final action was taken against it. Rodriquez responded to the letter by requesting a hearing at which he would have the opportunity to present proof that the dealership had not been closed or abandoned. In view of this response, Reyes was instructed by her supervisor to pay another visit to the dealership. She made this visit on Tuesday, November 8, 1988. This time she encountered two men at the location. There were also a couple of cars there as well. One of the men, who claimed to be a representative of the dealership, telephoned Rodriquez's wife and had her speak with Reyes. During their telephone conversation, Mrs. Rodriquez informed Reyes that her husband was still active in the automobile sales business, but that he was conducting his business at their home. At the conclusion of their discussion, Reyes asked Mrs. Rodriquez to have her husband call Reyes' office. Mr. Rodriquez telephoned Reyes' office on November 16, 1988. Reyes was not in, so Rodriquez left a message. Later, that day, Reyes returned the call, but was unable to reach Rodriquez. The following day, Reyes went back to the dealership, where she found the same two men she had met there on November 8, 1988. Rodriquez, however, was not at the dealership. Reyes therefore left. She came back later in the day. This time Mr. Rodriquez was present and he spoke with Reyes. When asked by Reyes why there was no business activity nor records at the licensed business location, Rodriquez responded that the dealership was now open every day from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He provided Reyes with no additional information. Reyes revisited the dealership on Friday, January 13, 1989, Wednesday, January 18, 1989, Thursday, January 19, 1989, and Monday, January 23, 1989, during normal business hours. On each of these occasions, she found no one at the location and the doors to the warehouse closed and locked. She made another visit on Monday, January 30, 1989. Although it was during normal business hours, there was no indication of any activity at the dealership. Furthermore, the sign which had identified the business had been removed. This prompted Reyes to speak with the leasing agent at the warehouse complex. The leasing agent told Reyes that Respondent was no longer occupying space at the complex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Javier F. Rodriquez, President Inrodar Auto Sales, Inc. 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 Charles J. Brantley, Director Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
