Findings Of Fact In 1977, Dr. Reavis applied for licensure as a medical doctor in Florida by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.051, [now Section 458.313(3)], Florida Statutes. Dr. Reavis was licensed in January 1978 by the Board. Dr. Reavis moved to Lakeland, Florida in 1978, where he has practiced medicine continuously since that time. The Board without actual notice to Dr. Reavis entered a Final Order on February 5, 1981, which purported to declare null and void the license of Dr. Reavis to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Reavis became aware of the Board's action in 1984 when he sought to renew his license. Dr. Reavis immediately took steps to have the Board's order of February 5, 1981, rescinded. The Board reinstated the license of Dr. Reavis on February 15, 1984, but concurrently gave notice of its intent to reprimand Dr. Reavis for violation of Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code was enacted on December 12, 1983. Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code, requires a doctor licensed by endorsement to present evidence to the Board of actually practicing in Florida. It is this provision of the rule which the Board alleges Dr. Reavis violated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medical Examiners dismiss forthwith the Notice of Intent to Reprimand, and take no penal action against the Respondent, Dr. Wilton Reavis. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Clarke, Jr., Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed all lines adjuster, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with, among other duties, the responsibility and duty to enforce the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, which consists of Chapters 624-632, 634, 635, 641, 642, 648, and 651, Florida Statutes (2002). See § 624.307(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent has been continuously licensed in the State of Florida as an independent all lines adjuster authorized to transact insurance adjusting business since August 1986. On January 1, 1999, at approximately 11:55 p.m., Respondent was driving his Ford Bronco in Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy White noticed that Respondent's license tag appeared to be expired. He followed Respondent for about a quarter of a mile, while he ran Respondent's tag number through the computer to determine whether it was, in fact, expired. Upon receiving an affirmative response, Deputy White pulled over Respondent's vehicle. Reserve Deputy McLaughlin was riding with Deputy White. Deputy McLaughlin approached Respondent's car and immediately detected a strong odor of burning marijuana. Deputy White then approached the car and confirmed the smell of marijuana smoke. The deputies asked Respondent for permission to search his vehicle. According to both deputies, Respondent not only gave them permission to search his car, but told them where they could find the marijuana, which was inside a black travel bag on the back seat of the car. Both deputies testified that Respondent told them he had received the marijuana as a Christmas gift. Respondent was arrested for possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, a third-degree felony pursuant to Subsection 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998). At the hearing, Respondent testified that the black travel bag containing the marijuana belonged to an acquaintance to whom he had earlier given a ride. Respondent testified that he did not know the marijuana was in the car until the deputies found it and denied having told the deputies where to find it or that it was a Christmas gift. Respondent's testimony on these points was not credible. On or about February 12, 1999, a one-count information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, charging Respondent with possession of cannabis in violation of Subsection 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998), a third-degree felony. On September 30, 2002, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge, which was accepted. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of six months and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Respondent successfully completed his probation, and an order terminating probation was entered on February 5, 2003. After Respondent's arrest, but before the disposition of his case, the Department received an unrelated complaint concerning the manner in which Respondent was handling claims. Ms. Raulerson, a Department investigator, performed an investigation. She discovered that the Department did not have a current resident address for Respondent and obtained the correct address through Respondent's father. On January 3, 2002, Ms. Raulerson issued a letter of guidance to Respondent regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Ms. Raulerson's letter also reminded Respondent of his obligation to notify the Department of changes in his principal business, residence, and mailing addresses. She enclosed a copy of the appropriate form on which to notify the Department of address changes. During her investigation of Respondent's claims handling, Ms. Raulerson had a telephone conversation with Respondent. Ms. Raulerson mentioned that, unrelated to her investigation, the Department had received information indicating that Respondent had been charged with a felony. Respondent told Ms. Raulerson that the charge had been dismissed. Ms. Raulerson responded that if the charges had been dismissed, Respondent would be prudent to forward the paperwork to the Department so that its records could be corrected. In October 2002, Mr. Wilds, a Department investigator, was assigned to investigate whether Respondent had been convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony, and had failed to notify the Department of his conviction or plea. Mr. Wilds was unable to contact Respondent at the addresses in the Department's files, which indicated that Respondent did not take the advice in Ms. Raulerson's letter of guidance. Mr. Wilds added the failure to notify the Department of his address change to his investigator. Mr. Wilds contacted the Hillsborough County Circuit Court to request documentation regarding the outcome of Respondent's criminal case. In response, the Hillsborough County clerk's office provided Mr. Wilds with certified documents indicating that Respondent had pled nolo contendere and been placed on probation. Mr. Wilds next contacted the Department of Corrections to obtain information on Respondent's probationary status. By letter dated December 6, 2002, Respondent's probation officer, Robert Hughey, confirmed that Respondent was serving a probationary period of six months, commencing September 30, 2002, and scheduled to terminate on March 29, 2003. Subsection 626.621(11), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that the following constitutes grounds for the discretionary discipline of an agent's licensure: (11) Failure to inform the department or office in writing within 30 days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony or a crime punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or more under the law of the United States or of any state thereof, or under the law of any other country without regard to whether a judgment of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of the case. Respondent failed to report to the Department, within 30 days of doing so, that he entered a plea of nolo contendere to a third-degree felony charge of possession of cannabis on September 30, 2002. Respondent testified that he did not inform the Department of his plea of nolo contendere to a felony because Mr. Hughey assured him that he had already notified the Department. The evidence establishes that Mr. Hughey contacted the Department only after Mr. Wilds requested information as to Respondent's probationary status and that this occurred more than 30 days after Respondent entered his plea. However, Respondent's reliance on Mr. Hughey militates against a finding that Respondent's failure to notify the Department was willful. As to the failure to notify the Department of his address changes, Respondent testified that he has always relied on his employers to notify the Department of his address when appointment papers are filed on his behalf and that there was never a problem until these investigations commenced. While Respondent's reliance on his employers does not absolve him of the personal responsibility envisioned by Section 626.551, Florida Statutes (2002), it does militate against a finding that Respondent's failure to notify the Department of his address changes was willful. Respondent's insurance license has not been previously disciplined in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 626.621(8), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; guilty of violating Subsection 626.621(11), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and guilty of violating Section 626.551, Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensure as an all lines adjuster be suspended for three months for the violation of Count I, for three months for the violation of Count II, and for two months for the violation of Count III, with the suspensions for Counts II and III to run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 30th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, adopted revised rules of practice and procedure which became effective on September 10, 1981. Among these is Rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "matrix time ranges" that are used in determining presumptive parole release dates for persons who are serving prison terms. In determining presumptive parole release dates, the Respondent's rules require that a "salient factor score" be determined based upon such factors as the number of prior criminal convictions, the number of prior incarcerations, total time served in prisons, the inmate's age at the time of the offense which led to the first incarceration, the number of probation or parole revocations, the number of prior escape convictions, and whether burglary or breaking and entering is the present offense of conviction. The degree or severity of the present offense of conviction is then determined. The Respondent's Rule 23-21.09 sets guidelines for time ranges for presumptive parole release dates depending upon the severity of the present offense of conviction and the salient factor score. The more severe the present offense of conviction, the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. Similarly, given the severity of the offense, the higher the salient factor score the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. The rule replaced a rule which set different matrix time ranges. The new rule generally sets longer time ranges, but this is not uniformly true. The Petitioner, Seimore Keith, is an inmate presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner Keith was convicted of grand theft in July, 1980, and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. The conviction was the result of a guilty plea which was entered in accordance with a plea bargain. During plea negotiations, Petitioner Keith was advised that his presumptive parole release date under Florida Parole and Probation Commission rules would require that he serve no more than 25 months in prison. At the time that Petitioner Keith's presumptive parole release date was set by the Respondent, the new Rule 23-21.09 had come into effect, and the Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was set to require that he serve 32 months in prison. The Petitioner, Ronnie McKane, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted of the offense of armed robbery in February, 1981. Under rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Petitioner McKane's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by Respondent in setting McKane's presumptive parole release date. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Hull, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted in September, 1971, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. He was paroled in 1974, but was reincarcerated as a result of a parole violation in 1976. In 1977 he escaped, and was recaptured in January, 1981. On June 1, 1961, Petitioner Hull was convicted of the offense of escape and sentenced to serve nine months. Under the rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Hull's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rules were applied by Respondent in setting Hull's presumptive parole release date, and it has been set subsequent to the expiration of his sentence. Hull will therefore be released when his sentence expires in March, 1982. The Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, was convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana and uttering a forged instrument, and sentenced in February, 1981, to two consecutive five-year sentences. Under the rules in effect when Adams was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23- 21.09, Adams' presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by the Respondent in setting Adams' presumptive parole release date. During 1980, the Respondent directed its staff to begin considering proposed changes to its rules of practice and procedure. Various proposals were considered, and by September, 1980, a proposed rule package had been developed. The Respondent directed its staff to submit the proposed rule package to the Governor and members of the Cabinet, various pertinent legislators, county and circuit judges, prosecutors and public defenders, superintendents of each prison in the State, and to members of the Supreme Court and the district courts. The Commission opted to conduct various workshops throughout the State, and to invite all interested persons to share their input. Notices of the workshops were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The workshops were conducted, and the Commission commenced formal rule-making proceedings. Notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and hearings were scheduled. Notice of the formal rulemaking proceedings was also published in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pensacola Journal, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Orlando Sentinel-Star, and the Florida Times-Union. Persons who had requested specific notification were provided it. In response to this notice, the Respondent received considerable written input, and oral presentations were made at hearings that were conducted. The final hearing in the rule-making proceeding was conducted on June 19, 1981, and the rules, including Rule 23- 21.09, were thereafter adopted effective September 10, 1981. Notice of the proposed rule changes and of the formal rulemaking proceeding was not specifically disseminated to inmates at Florida's prisons. The proposed rules were for- warded to the superintendent of each facility. At some of the institutions the proposed rules were apparently posted. All persons who requested copies of the proposed rules from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission were provided them. Numerous prisoners and organizations that represent prisoners made input during the various states of the rulemaking proceeding. None of the Petitioners in this matter were specifically noticed of the rulemaking proceeding. One of the Petitioners had heard that rules were being proposed, and requested copies of them from members of the Legislature or from Department of Corrections personnel. None of the Petitioners requested copies of the proposed rules from the Respondent or anyone connected with the Respondent.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Corrections' Emergency Rule 33ER83-3 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons contained in petitioner's Petition for Determination of Validity of Emergency Rule, dated November 21, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1983, the Department filed and adopted Emergency Rule 33ER83-3, which provides: Shaving. All male inmates in the custody of the Department shall be clean shaven. An exemption from this requirement may be granted on medical grounds if it is determined by qualified medical staff that shaving would be detrimental to the inmate's health. In such cases the inmate may be required to keep his facial hair closely trimmed with scissors or clippers. In the December 2, 1983, Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 9., No. 48, the Department stated its reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare, justifying adoption of the emergency rule: The Department's rule requiring inmates to be clean shaven has recently been held invalid because of a failure to include provision for medical exemptions. If inmates were able to grow beards, mustaches and other facial hair it would seriously interfere with the identification of inmates by staff. To maintain institutional security and order it is essential that staff members be able to identify inmates easily. The emergency rule, by its terms, requires all male inmates in the Department's custody to be clean shaven, but authorizes a medical exemption. The rule applies to petitioner Adams because he is a male inmate in the Department's custody who grows facial hair. These facts are inferences which arise from the following: The hearing was held in guarded quarters at Baker Correctional Institution; Mr. Adams was obviously a male; and he wore a uniform identical to that worn by two inmates who testified. The clean-shaven rule is strictly enforced by the Department. One enforcement checkpoint is the inmate dining hall. Inmates with facial hair, and without no-shaving passes (proof of medical exemption) are required to shave their facial hair prior to eating. Food is not withheld, however, if they promise to shave immediately after eating. (Testimony of McGuire) There are sound reasons which justify the adoption of the rule on an emergency basis. If inmates were allowed to grow facial hair, such as beards and mustaches, the Department's ability to quickly and accurately identify them would be seriously impaired. Inmates with facial hair could easily and quickly alter their appearance by shaving. This would make it more difficult to identify inmates who commit crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault within the correctional institutions. For the same reasons, it would be more difficult to identify and apprehend inmates who successfully escape because the picture distributed to law enforcement agencies would depict inmates only in their clean-shaven condition. (Testimony of Townsend) The extent to which facial hair changes a person's appearance is illustrated by the recent experience of John Townsend, Assistant Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution. During a two-week vacation in August 1983, he grew a mustache. On his return, he toured the correctional institution without being recognized by correctional officers. Two officers required him to show identification. (Testimony of Townsend) There is a bona fide infectious condition known as Pseudo Folliculitis Barbae ("PFB") which occasionally afflicts male inmates. In its acute form, it infects an inmate's face causing symptoms such as sores, puss, and bumps. Medical treatment consists of applying an antihistamine facial cream such as Caladryl, and authorizing the inmate to forgo close shaving for approximately two weeks. In lieu of shaving, whiskers are cut with scissors or clippers; this allows facial hair to grow to a length of 1-2 millimeters. PFB symptoms vary, and actual medical treatment must be decided on an individual basis. Some conditions may require only facial cream, others may require no-shaving passes for periods shorter or longer than two weeks. (Testimony of Di-Huyen Luu, M.D.)
The Issue Whether Rule 33ER91-3, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority? Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, David Ansgar Nyberg, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections, at Marion Correctional Institution. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is not currently eligible for minimum custody classification even if the rules at issue did not apply to the Petitioner. Nor was the Petitioner eligible for minimum custody during the period of time that the policy challenged in case number 91-6699RX was in effect or the period of time during which the Emergency Rule applied. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Emergency Rule and Rule 33-6.0045(2)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code, establishes custody classifications for inmates. Custody classifications determine, among other things, the facility to which an inmate may be assigned and the degree of security an inmate is subjected to. Inmates are classified as minimum, medium, close or maximum custody, with minimum being the least restrictive and maximum being the most restrictive. The procedure to be followed in classifying each inmate is provided in Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule amend Rule 33-6.0045(2), Florida Administrative Code, by adding three paragraphs, including the following pertinent paragraph challenged by the Petitioner: (g) Any inmate who has been certified as a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to ch. 917, FS shall not be assigned to minimum custody status unless they have successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program. The Emergency Rule and the proposed amendment to Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule"), include the same substantive amendments to Rule 33-6.0045, Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule was only effective during part of 1991, prior to promulgating the Proposed Rule. Relevant Effect of the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), which is titled "mentally disordered sex offenders" provided, in pertinent part, the following: 917.14 Certifying defendant for hearing.-- The court may suspend the sentence and certify a defendant for a hearing and examination in the circuit court to determine whether the person is a mentally disordered sex offender if: The person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor for which he is currently being prosecuted, whether or not the crime is a sex offense; There is a probable cause to believe that the person is a mentally disordered sex offender; and The mental disorder has existed for at least the immediately preceding 4 months. The court may certify a person under subsection (1) on its own motion, on motion by the State Attorney, or on application by affidavit of the defendant. A "mentally disordered sex offender" is defined in Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1975), as follows: "Mentally disordered sex offender" means a person who is not insane but who has a mental disorder and is considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. Any person determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender was to be committed "to the custody of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation for care, treatment, and rehabilitation." Section 917.19, Florida Statutes (1975). The definition of a "mentally disordered sex offender" was modified in 1977. Pursuant to Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1977), a "mentally disordered sex offender" was defined as follows: A "mentally disordered sex offender" or "offender is a person who: Has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a sex offense or attempted sex offense in a current prosecution; Suffers from a nonpsychotic mental or emotional disorder, yet is competent; and Is likely to commit further sex offenses if permitted to remain at liberty. Subsequent to 1977, the classification of an offender as a mentally disordered sex offender was repealed. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule, any person who has been determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender who has NOT successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program may not be classified as minimum custody. The Statutory Authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. The specific authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule is Sections 20.315, 944.09 and 958.11, Florida Statutes. The specific laws implemented by the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule is Sections 20.315, 921.20, 944.09 and 958.11, Florida Statutes. The Respondent intends to add by technical amendment the following additional statutory authority for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule: Sections 944.17 and 944.1905, Florida Statutes. The Rationale for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. The immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare which the Respondent indicated justified promulgating the Emergency Rule pursuant to Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes, was set out in the Notice of Emergency Rulemaking: The rule is necessary in order to prevent convicted sex offenders, inmates certified as mentally disordered sex offenders, and aliens who are subject to deportation from being assigned minimum custody status. The department's current classification policy permits the classification of minimum custody for these inmates who, by their nature, present an extraordinary threat to public safety should they escape, or, in the case of aliens, present an inordinate escape risk because of the threat to deportation. The sex offenders being addressed are those who are or have been previously convicted of sex offenses listed in s.944.277(1), which are those sex offenses which exclude inmates from awards of provisional credits, and therefore identify them as a category of offenders who present a threat to public safety. The rule also addresses those persons certified as mentally disordered sex offenders under ch. 917 FS, who are considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. Experience has shown that one of the categories of inmates that are the greatest risk of escape are those subject to deportation, which in certain cases, would subject them to severe penalties in their native countries. Without an emergency rule, these categories of offenders could be reduced to minimum custody and permitted placement on public work squads or other outside work assignments with little or no supervision. The emergency rule presents a mechanism to ensure that these inmates are retained in a secure perimeter or under direct supervision. Although the Notice of Emergency Rulemaking indicates that there are only two inmates who are classified as mentally disordered sex offenders under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, there may be more. The number referenced in the Notice does not include former inmates who have been released, with or without further supervision, who may commit offenses in the future which could result in their return to prison. Additionally, it is possible that Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, or a similar statute, could be enacted in the future resulting in the classification of additional inmates as mentally disordered sex offenders. In fact, Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, has been repealed and then reenacted in the past. Even if there are only two inmates classified as mentally disordered sex offenders, the evidence failed to prove that the potential threat from a single inmate classified as a mentally disordered sex offender is not sufficient justification for the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule. Although the Respondent was aware at the time of promulgating the challenged rules that the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule would apply to the Petitioner, who is one of the inmates currently in prison who is classified as a mentally disordered sex offender, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Respondent was "out to get the Petitioner." The Petitioner failed to prove that the Petitioner adopted the Emergency Rule or the Proposed Rule only because they apply to the Petitioner. The purpose for promulgating the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule was to protect the public. By the very definition of a mentally disordered sex offender under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, persons determined to be mentally disordered sex offenders are considered likely to constitute a continuing threat. Pursuant to the definition of a mentally disordered sex offender contained in the 1975 statutes, such a person "is considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses." Section 917.13, Florida Statutes (1975). As defined in the 1977 statutes, such a person "[i]s likely to commit further sex offenses if permitted to remain at liberty." Section 917.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). Persons classified as minimum custody are subject to less security. They may be placed on work programs which take them out of the institution. Allowing a person who has been determined by the courts of Florida to be likely to commit further sex offenses or to have a propensity to commit sex offenses and who have not completed programs intended to correct such tendencies, has the potential of placing the public at unnecessary risk. The Impact of the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule on the Petitioner and the Petitioner's Challenge. The Petitioner was charged with, and convicted of, first degree murder in 1975. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and was required to serve a minimum of 25 years. The Petitioner was not charged with any sex offense. Subsequent to the Petitioner's conviction, his defense attorney suggested that the Petitioner request that he be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975). The Petitioner did in fact request that he be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender. Pursuant to Section 917.14(2), Florida Statutes (1975), such a request was required to be made by "affidavit of the defendant." The Petitioner's request to be classified as a mentally disordered sex offender was granted on December 19, 1975, by then Circuit Court Judge Charles Scruggs, III. There was no requirement that a person classified as a mentally disordered sex offender in 1975 actually be convicted of having committed a sex offense. There was, however, a requirement that the sentencing judge determine that the person being classified as a mentally disordered sex offender: Have a mental disorder; and Be considered dangerous to others because of a propensity to commit sex offenses. It was not necessary under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), that it be shown that the person ever actually committed a sex offense. It was only necessary that the person show a propensity or inclination to commit a sex offense in the future. On April 1, 1976, the Petitioner was transferred from a correctional institution to the state mental hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. In March, 1980, the Petitioner was resentenced and returned to a correctional institution. Judge Scruggs recommended that the Petitioner be placed in minimum custody. The Petitioner is currently classified as medium custody. Even without the Emergency Rule or the Proposed Rule, the Petitioner has not been eligible for classification as minimum custody. Nor is the Petitioner currently eligible for minimum custody. Should the Petitioner, who has had no disciplinary reports during his seventeen years incarceration by the Respondent, otherwise become eligible for minimum custody in the future, he will not be so classified because of the Proposed Rule. In light of the fact that the Petitioner was not eligible for minimum custody during the period of time that the Emergency Rule was effective, the Emergency Rule had no impact on the Petitioner and he lacks standing to challenge the Emergency Rule. The Petitioner failed to prove that he has successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender program. The Petitioner was involved in a sex offense committed against him when he was a child. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule the Petitioner will not be eligible for minimum custody because he was classified as a mentally disordered sex offender and has apparently not successfully completed the mentally disordered sex offender. Nor can the Petitioner successfully complete the program since it is no longer provided. The Petitioner has alleged that the Emergency Rule and the Proposed Rule are invalid because they are arbitrary and capricious. The Petitioner has also alleged that the Emergency Rule is invalid because no emergency existed when it was promulgated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a contractor engaged in highway construction and holds a certificate of qualification with Respondent. Action pending in DOAH Case No. 84-2538 could result in the suspension of Petitioner's certificate if an alleged contract delinquency is proven. Section 337.16, F.S., delegates to Respondent the authority to revoke or suspend a certificate when contract delinquency is demonstrated. This statute provides: No contractor shall be qualified to bid when an investigation by the highway engineer discloses that such contractor is delinquent on a previously awarded contract, and in such case his certificate of qualification shall be suspended or revoked. The department may suspend, for a specified period of time, or revoke for good cause any certificate of qualification. The purpose of the above statute is to enforce timely completion of construction work and to prevent a contractor from taking on new work which might require diversion of resources from the delinquent job, thus lessening the contractor's ability to catch up. Rule 14-23.01, F.A.C. was promulgated by Respondent to implement its authority to suspend or revoke contractor certificates for job delinquency. Because contractors charged with delinquency frequently catch-up or cure the delinquency during the pendency of administrative proceedings, 1/ Respondent's statutory authority to enforce construction schedules was easily thwarted. To "put teeth" in its ability to deter job delays, Respondent amended its delinquency rule in 1982 to provide after- the-fact certificate suspension where a contractor was proven to have been delinquent in its progress on a construction project. This provision, which is challenged here, states as follows: (b) REINSTATEMENT. Any contractor disqualified under the above provisions shall be disqualified from further bidding and shall be disapproved as a contractor until the delinquency is cured. Where a contractor cures the alleged delinquency during the course of administrative proceedings, the Department may suspend the qualification to bid and disapprove as a subcontractor for the number of days the contractor is administratively determined to be delinquent. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the last sentence which it contends amounts to unauthorized punishment since the deficiency sought to be corrected by the statute no longer exists. However, the provision would arguably have some deterrent force since contractors would recognize that suspension could not be avoided merely by requesting formal proceedings 2/ and counting on administrative delay to render the delinquency issue moot.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 3-12, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
