Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibit received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Mr. John S. Moncrief, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on June 12, 1980, and was issued Certificate Number C-9151 Mr. Moncrief worked in various law enforcement positions from 1979 through 1984. From December 1, 1981, until September 27, 1982, Mr. Moncrief worked as a Corrections Officer for the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office. During the entire time that Mr. Moncrief worked in law enforcement, the only charges or complaints made against him were those which form the basis for the charges in this case. During the months of March and April of 1982, Mr. Gerald Ray "Cowboy" Powell was an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. During a portion of that time Ms. Lynda Carroll was also an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. At all relevant times Mr. Powell was housed in a downstairs cell which was used for trustees and minimum security inmates and Ms. Carroll was housed in the women's cellblock which was on the second floor of the jail facility. It was not possible for an inmate housed on the second floor to come down to the first floor without the assistance of a jail employee. On two occasions during the months of March and April of 1982, Moncrief allowed Ms. Carroll to come downstairs at night and visit Mr. Powell in the latter's downstairs cell. In order to do so, it was necessary for Mr. Moncrief to enter the portion of the jail facility in which female inmates were housed and to open locked doors for Ms. Carroll. On both of the occasions mentioned immediately above, Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll engaged in sexual intercourse in Mr. Powell's cell.2 On one occasion during the month of April of 1982,another Corrections Officer employed by the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office allowed Mr. Powell to go upstairs at night and visit with Ms. Carroll in her cell. On this occasion Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll did not engage in sexual intercourse. Mr. Moncrief was not involved in any way with Mr. Powell's upstairs visit with Ms. Carroll. During March and April of 1982 the policies and procedures in effect at the Okeechobee County Jail prohibited male Corrections Officers from entering the area in which female inmates were housed unless the male Corrections Officer was accompanied by a matron or a female dispatcher. Policies and procedures in effect at that time also prohibited inmates of one sex from visiting with inmates of the opposite sex. Mr. Moncrief was aware of these policies. It was a violation of these policies for Mr. Monerief to allow Ms. Carroll to visit with Mr. Powell in the latter's cell.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. enter a Final Order dismissing all charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint on the grounds of insufficient evidence. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1985, Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH ISH, 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 23rd day of September, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Based upon 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: l. The Petitioner, Terry Wooden, a black male, was hired by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Corrections, on December 5, 1980 as a Correctional Officer I at River Junction Correctional Institution. River Junction Correctional Institution (RJCI) is a secure facility responsible for the care, custody and control of certain inmates. Correctional Officers are assigned to security posts which are located throughout the facility. Some "inside" security posts are located within inmate dormitories. Outside perimeter security posts, which are small tower-like buildings, are located along the perimeter fence and are the last observation posts between containment and possible inmate escape. For security reasons, the Respondent prohibits sleeping on the job and requires its correctional officers to remain alert at all times. Supervisors (generally employees holding the rank of sergeant) often make "rounds" of the facility wherein security posts are visited to ensure that the officer on, duty at that post is alert. RJCI procedure requires that an officer on duty at a security post "challenge" a supervisor or other correctional officer who approaches the security post. When a supervisor enters a dormitory, the officer assigned to that post is required to challenge that person by immediately leaving the officer's station (located within the dormitory) to meet the approaching person. If the officer is on the telephone or engaged in some activity, it is acceptable for the officer to wave his hand to the approaching person or indicate in some other manner that he is aware that someone has entered the area. When a supervisor approaches an outside security post, the officer on duty is required to meet the approaching individual at the door of the building. Discipline of employees at RJCI is based on a progressive system. During the time the Petitioner was employed at RJCI, a sergeant was required to report a sleeping/unalertness violation by a correctional officer to the shift lieutenant (supervisor of all employees on a particular shift). There were no written guidelines and the reporting officer was required to exercise some discretion in determining whether he believed that an offense had been committed. On the first incident, the shift lieutenant would counsel the employee about the infraction, but no written report was made. On the second report of an offense to the shift lieutenant, a written report of the incident would be prepared by either the reporting officer or the shift lieutenant. The shift lieutenant would interview the employee about the alleged violation and refer the report to the department head (correctional officer chief). The department head would then submit the written report to the personnel manager with recommendations. Upon receiving a written report of an infraction from the department head, the personnel manager would gather information pertaining to the offense and give it to the superintendent, along with recommendations for disposing of the case. The superintendent would then schedule a "predetermination conference", confront the employee with the allegations and determine the disciplinary action to be taken. Prior to 1979 and until June 1982, L. C. McAllister, a white male, was superintendent at RJCI; from June 1982 to December 10, 1982, George Ragans, a white male, was acting superintendent at RJCI; from December 13, 1982 through August 1983, Ken Snover, a white male, was superintendent at RJCI. Each superintendent was responsible for determining the particular penalty to be imposed using guidelines set forth in Chapter 33, Section 9 of the Rules of Personnel. Generally, the employee's first sleeping/unalertness violation reported to the personnel manager, and ultimately, the superintendent, would result in counseling (oral reprimand); the second violation would result in a written reprimand; the third violation would result in a suspension; the fourth violation would result in a longer suspension or dismissal; and, the fifth violation would result in dismissal. Major Miles, a white male, is a department head and functions as the overall supervisor of correctional officers at RJCI. Miles assigns posts and shifts to correctional officers. Major Miles usually assigns new correctional officers to midnight shift after they complete orientation. After Petitioner completed his orientation period, he was placed on midnight shift (12:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and assigned to Post 23 in "G" dormitory. The Petitioner completed his one year probationary period on December 5, 1981. The Petitioner was assigned an overall rating of "satisfactory" by his shift supervisor, Lieutenant Carter, a black male. The evaluation stated that Petitioner got along well with supervisors and fellow employees. In December of 1981, Lieutenant Childs, a white male, became the Petitioner's shift supervisor. Initially, the Petitioner and Lieutenant Childs enjoyed a friendly relationship. Lieutenant Childs drove the Petitioner to work on several occasions and both men shared a common interest in sports. On December 13, 1981 an officer made a routine check of "G" dormitory and found Petitioner asleep in the officer's station. The Petitioner was counseled about this first infraction. Shortly after Petitioner's sleeping incident of December 13, 1981, Major Miles changed Petitioner's post assignment from dormitory to Perimeter Post 3. Major Miles changed Petitioner's post because several inmates had complained to him that a lot of stealing was taking place and that Petitioner was not watchful enough to prevent it. The inmates also complained that Petitioner's counseling style seemed like harassment. After Petitioner's post was changed from "G" dormitory to Perimeter Post 3, his relationship with Lieutenant Childs began to turn sour. The Petitioner was "concerned" because he believed that Lieutenant Childs had input into Major Miles' decision to reassign him. On May 10, 1982, Lieutenant Childs found the Petitioner unalert at Perimeter Post 3. The Petitioner received a written reprimand for this second infraction. On August 19, 1982, Sergeant Pollock, a black male, found Petitioner unalert while on duty at Perimeter Post 3. Sergeant Pollock reported the incident to Lieutenant Childs but suggested that Petitioner be counseled rather than "written-up". Sergeant Pollock believed that a lesser punishment might encourage Petitioner's improvement. Lieutenant Childs told Pollock to think about it for a couple of days. On August 21, 1982, Sergeant Parks and Sergeant Tharpe found Petitioner unalert at his post. When Sergeant Pollock discovered this incident, he changed his mind about his previous recommendation to Lieutenant Childs. Childs told Pollock to submit a written report. The Petitioner was suspended for 3 days for these third and fourth sleeping/unalertness infractions. On September 2, 1982, Lieutenant Childs completed an employee rating evaluation on Petitioner for the period September 1, 1981 to September 2, 1982. Petitioner was given an overall rating of "satisfactory", but Lieutenant Childs noted several areas of concern. Lieutenant Childs mentioned that Petitioner seemed to interpret counseling sessions "as personal threats conspired, for no bonafide reason to harass him." However, Lieutenant Childs went on to note that Petitioner's attitude and work performance was improving and that Petitioner was "making a definite and positive effort to correct his shortcomings." On October 28, 1982 an inmate escaped from RJCI. At the time of the inmate's escape, Petitioner was on duty at Perimeter Post-3 and William Chessher, a white correctional officer, was on duty on Perimeter Post 2. Major Miles, the department head, recommended that both men be disciplined for being unalert. Because the inmate's escape route took him through Perimeter Post 3's primary area of responsibility, Major Miles recommended that Petitioner be dismissed; Miles recommended that Chessher be reprimanded or suspended because the escape route was along Perimeter Post 2's secondary area of responsibility. On November 18, 1982, Acting Superintendent George Ragans held a predetermination conference concerning Petitioner's October 28, 1982 unalertness charge. Mr. Ragans found that the offense was substantiated but did not follow Major Miles' recommendation that Petitioner be dismissed. Ragans suspended the Petitioner for fifteen (15) days for this fifth sleeping/unalertness violation. Immediately following the November 18, 1982 predetermination conference, Ragans suggested to Petitioner that Petitioner should request a shift change. However, Petitioner explained to Ragans that he had a new baby at home, was taking college courses and did not want a shift change at that time. When Petitioner returned to work on December 16, 1982 after his fifteen (15) day suspension he had decided that he wanted a shift change. Petitioner went to the control room to find out how to submit a shift change request. In the control room, Petitioner spoke with a female officer concerning the procedures for requesting a shift change. The female officer agreed to type a shift change request for Petitioner. The female officer typed the request and gave Petitioner a copy. Shift change requests are directed to the shift lieutenant, in this instance, Lieutenant Childs, who then passes the request to Major Miles for final action. The female officer told Petitioner that she would put the original request for shift change in Lieutenant Childs' box in the control room. For some reason, Lieutenant Childs never received Petitioner's written request for shift change. In January 1983, the Petitioner spoke with the new superintendent, Ken Snover, regarding a shift change. Mr. Snover told Petitioner to proceed through the change of command and if he was still not satisfied, to return and speak with him again. One night, while on duty sometime after December 16, 1982 Petitioner asked Lieutenant Childs about a shift change. Lieutenant Childs told Petitioner that there were going to be a lot of changes made. Petitioner spoke to Major Miles on one occasion after December 16, 1982 and asked about a shift change. Major Miles told Petitioner to submit a written request. Major Miles never received a written request for shift change from Petitioner. Sometime prior to August 1, 1983, Petitioner was temporarily assigned to "G" dormitory and worked with officer Gano, a white male. Gano complained to Lieutenant Childs that Petitioner was sleeping on duty. Before Gano complained to Childs, Childs had received allegations of Petitioner being asleep from other correctional officers. Because of those complaints, Childs had instructed two sergeants to closely review Petitioner's dormitory work habits. On one occasion, the sergeants told Lieutenant Childs that Petitioner appeared to be asleep while on duty. On August 1, 1983, Lieutenant Childs instructed officer Gano to let him know if Petitioner was sleeping by giving a pre-arranged signal. Officer Gano found Petitioner asleep or "non-alert" and gave the pre-arranged signal. Lieutenant Childs entered the dormitory without Petitioner challenging him and found Petitioner unalert. Lieutenant Childs wrote a report on Petitioner's sixth sleeping infraction. Superintendent Ken Snover held a predetermination conference concerning Petitioner's August 1, 1983 unalertness charge. Snover ordered the Petitioner's dismissal, effective August 18, 1983. Steve Williams, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on April 20, 1981 and was given an oral reprimand for this first offense. Williams was caught sleeping again on June 21, 28, and July 31, 1981. Because of the personnel manager's vacation a predetermination conference letter could not be sent until after the third occurrence and all three violations were addressed at the same conference. Williams was given a written reprimand for this second sleeping infraction. Thomas Jackson, a black Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on October 29, 1982 and was given an oral reprimand for this first offense. On May 13, 1983, Jackson was caught sleeping a second time and was given an official reprimand. On August 10, 1983, Jackson was caught sleeping a third time and was suspended for one week (5 working days). Jackson was offered and accepted a shift change, from midnight to evening shift. Dennis Edwards, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping in July 1982 and was counseled for this first offense. In Apri1 1983, he was caught sleeping again and was given a written reprimand. In July 1983, Edwards was suspended for 5 working days because of his third offense of sleeping while on duty. Larry Garrett, a black Correctional Officer I, was counseled for sleeping on duty for his first offense, but no documentation was made to his personnel file. On September 5, 1981 Garrett was caught sleeping a second time and was given a written reprimand. On December 3, 1981, Garrett was caught sleeping a third time and was suspended for three days. Garrett was offered a shift change, but declined because he was taking classes and had a newborn baby. On December 16, 1981, Garrett was caught sleeping for the fourth time and was terminated. Michae1 Weeks, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on June 9, 1981 and was given a written reprimand for this first offense. On May 10, 1982 he was caught sleeping a second time and was given a written reprimand. Weeks was caught sleeping again on August 1, 8 and 10, 1982. Weeks was given a predetermination conference letter, but before the hearing was held, he was caught sleeping again on August 18, 1982. Weeks voluntarily resigned on August 18, 1982. Warren Harris, a black Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on November 29, 1979 and was given a written reprimand for this first offense. On June 13, 1981, Harris was caught sleeping again and was given another written reprimand. On September 9, 1981, Harris was caught sleeping for the third time and was suspended for three days. Harris was caught sleeping again on October 28 and 29, 1981 for his fourth offense. Harris was given a letter of termination, but resigned before the termination took effect. Harold Bailey, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on June 14, 1982 and was counseled for this first offense. Bailey was caught sleeping again on July 17, 1982 and was given a written reprimand. On January 5, 1983 Bailey was caught sleeping on duty for the third time and was suspended for five days. On April 2, 1983, Bailey was charged with a fourth offense but Superintendent Snover found the allegations "unsubstantiated." Nevertheless, Bailey was counseled and documentation of the incident was placed in his personnel file. Bailey was offered a shift change but he refused it. Bailey's shift was later changed. In an effort to assist employees who were working midnight shift and having problems staying awake, the personnel manager and the superintendent would sometimes offer the employee a shift change or encourage the employee to seek a shift change. At various times, both black and white employees were offered, or encouraged to seek shift changes when they were having trouble on midnight shift. From time to time, correctional officers would submit requests for shift and/or post changes. Major Miles, the department head, usually made shift or post changes based on an individual's written request and the needs of the institution to have certain security posts staffed. Major Miles made some shift and post changes without a written request and over the objection of the employee if it was required by the needs of the institution. Shift and post changes at RJCI were given to both white and black employees in a substantially similar manner. Lieutenant Childs, upon receiving a request for a shift or post change, was required to forward the request to Major Miles for final action. Lieutenant Childs would forward a request for shift or post change with a favorable recommendation only if he believed the employee "earned" the recommendation by good performance on his current shift or post. As shift lieutenant, Childs was authorized to make some temporary post re-assignments for employees on his shift. During the last several months of Petitioner's employment, Petitioner was permanently assigned to Perimeter Post 3, but Lieutenant Childs temporarily assigned him to a post in "G" dormitory. While Petitioner was temporarily assigned to "G" dormitory, Lieutenant Childs became aware through "the grapevine" that Petitioner wanted to have Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Because different post assignments, carried different days off, a change in days off would have required a post change. Lieutenant Childs told Sergeant Pollock to tell Petitioner that he would arrange for Petitioner to have the desired days off as soon as possible if Petitioner's work performance improved. In January 1983 a new Department of Corrections directive required that certain correctional officers receive 160 supplementary hours of training. A majority of the staff at RJCI was required to complete the supplemental training. From January 1983 through August 1983, personnel at RJCI were engaged in the on-going training program. One set of training classes were scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.mand another set of classes were scheduled from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., five days a week. During the period from January 1983 through August 1983, shift and post changes were made primarily to allow correctional officers the opportunity to attend the training sessions as required. As superintendent of RJCI, Ken Snover conducted "predetermination conferences" wherein he was required to review allegations, determine whether or not the charges were substantiated and then decide what disciplinary action to take. Superintendent Snover did not apply a lesser standard of proof at predetermination conferences where Petitioner was charged with sleeping/unalertness violations than he applied when white officers were involved. On one occasion Snover found that the allegations of sleeping were not sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against two white employees, Harold Bailey and Walter Dean, where the allegation was made by one sergeant but denied by both correctional officers. At the predetermination conferences that Snover conducted where Petitioner was charged, the allegations were all substantiated by one or more individuals and denied only by Petitioner. Perimeter Post 3 as well as other perimeter posts, are isolated outside security posts and are generally not considered to be the most desirable security post assignments. Both black and white officers were assigned to Perimeter Post 3 and other perimeter posts. A slight majority of the correctional officers permanently assigned to perimeter posts were black. There was no indication that correctional officers were assigned to Perimeter Post 3 on a racial basis nor as a "set up" to achieve dismissal.
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. Terry Wooden. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 8th day September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED::: Drucilla E. Bell, Esq. Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Marva Davis, Esq. 379 E. Jefferson Street P. O. Drawer 551 Quincy, FL 32351 Louie L. Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on. Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 3230 APPENDIX 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. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. The first sentence is rejected as a recitation of testimony. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by Competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 30. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or misleading. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 14A. Rejected as subordinate. 14B. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. 15A. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. 15B. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. 16A. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 16B. Rejected as misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading. Rejected as misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 27,^ 28 and 29. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 28 and 29. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 39, and 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate, misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. (No paragraph 34). Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 15. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. - Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Findings of Fact 39 and 47. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on June 4, 1985, and was issued certificate number 32-85-502-02. The certificate has remained current through the present. Respondent served as a correctional officer for the Highlands County Sheriff's Office for about seven years, until he resigned shortly after the incident described below. At the time of this resignation, he was a corporal. Throughout his employment with the Highlands County Sheriffs Office, Respondent has been a model correctional officer. Unlike some correctional officers at the County jail, Respondent is not overbearing with the inmates, but frequently finds the time to try to help them with their problems. He does not swear publicly or privately. He is 5' 9" and weighs 185 pounds. In late December, 1991, a large number of inmates were housed in the Highlands County jail. The juvenile cellblock in particular was at capacity, and there was no place to isolate individual juvenile inmates from other juvenile inmates. At the time, the juvenile cellblock contained four juveniles: E. M., O. M., C. S., and C. L. Except for C. S., the juveniles are all between 5' 7" and 5' 9" and 140-150 pounds. C.S. stands 6' 2" and weighs about 200 pounds. Except for C. L., the juveniles had been causing trouble in the cellblock. They had flooded the cellblock, destroyed a television, and engaged in other disruptive behavior. E. M. and O. M. had also been threatening to rape and batter C. L., who is intellectually challenged and physically vulnerable to the other juveniles. After receiving reports of the threats, Respondent ordered that E. M., O. M., and C. S. be brought downstairs from their cellblock to the booking office where Respondent worked. A correctional officer brought the juveniles to Respondent and lined them up near a wall. Respondent questioned the juveniles in the hallway in the booking office. This is a crowded, busy area. He questioned them in the presence of the correctional officer who had brought the juveniles down and within a few feet of several other correctional officers and other employees of the Highlands County Sheriffs Office. Respondent was unaware that C. S. had played no role in threatening C. L. Respondent's questioning of C. S. was uneventful. In questioning O. M. and E. M., however, Respondent was unable to communicate to them the importance of good behavior in the cellblock. Reasonably fearing that the juveniles might carry out their threats to injure C. L., Respondent became more insistent that they behave themselves. Instead of indicating a willingness to obey Respondent's orders not to harm the other juvenile, O. M. and E. M. defiantly leaned into Respondent's face, clearly conveying their rejection of his demand for their cooperation. When O. M. tried to walk by Respondent, Respondent, who is right-handed, lightly tapped O. M. in the side of his head so as to cause him to remain where Respondent could address him. There is insubstantial evidence that Respondent also touched E. M. However, even if he did touch E. M. to get his attention, Respondent did so in an even lighter fashion than he touched O. M. Without further physical contact, Respondent, now in a louder tone, emphasized that he wanted the juveniles to behave and demanded that they not bother C. L. again. Neither O. M. nor E. M. was in any way injured by any physical contact with Respondent. Any physical contact on Respondent's part never threatened physical or emotional harm to O. M. or E. M. Sometime after the above-described incident, following an investigation, the Highlands County Sheriffs Office allowed Respondent to resign rather than face termination. Respondent resigned rather than contest the matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED on November 22, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 22, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3381 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 8: rejected as irrelevant. The relevant behavior of the juveniles is described in the order. 9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10: rejected as irrelevant. 11: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. The only apology from Respondent pertained to his becoming agitated orally--not physically. 12: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage Acting General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dawn P. Whitehurst, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Attorney Linda Rodriguez-Torrent 3750 US 27 North, Suite 12 Sebring, Florida 33870
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anthony G. Benjamin was certified by Petitioner on May 25, 1990, and was issued certificate number 44-90-502-02. At the time of the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent was a certified correctional officer employed by Glades Correctional Institution. On July 1, 1990, Officer Amadeo Bianchi and Officer Keith Golden were working as patrol officers with the South Bay Police Department in Palm Beach County. They received a call regarding a prowler at 188 Harrell Drive. They responded to that call in a marked police car, and both officers were wearing their police uniforms. Officers Bianchi and Golden arrived at approximately 3:52 a.m. and saw Respondent outside the apartment at that address. Both officers knew Respondent. They also knew that he lived in the apartment at that address and that he was employed as a correctional officer at Glades Correctional Institution. The officers proceeded to the door of the apartment and knocked. Keisha Benjamin, Respondent's wife, opened the door. Respondent walked through the open door past the police officers and his wife, heading straight for the bedroom door located to the right of the door where the police officers were standing. As Respondent proceeded toward the bedroom door, his wife was still standing at the apartment door with the police officers, explaining that she did not want Respondent there, that they had been having problems, and that he had moved out approximately a week earlier. Officer Golden watched Respondent reach the bedroom door, discover that the closed door was locked, and then kick the door open. After Respondent entered the bedroom, Officer Golden could hear the sounds of people fighting. Both police officers headed toward the bedroom door. When the two officers reached the bedroom door, they could see Respondent and another man fighting on top of the bed. The two officers entered the bedroom, each grabbing one of the fighting men from behind in order to break up the fight. Officer Bianchi grabbed Respondent. It was later determined that the individual Officer Golden grabbed was a man named Paul King, Respondent's wife's former boyfriend. Officer Golden pulled Paul King away from the fight and out into the living room area of the apartment. Golden instructed him to calm down, to stay there, and to not move. King cooperated with Officer Golden and did as he was instructed. As Officer Golden turned to walk toward the bedroom, he saw Officer Bianchi and Respondent coming out of the bedroom. They were still struggling, and Officer Bianchi was attempting to restrain Respondent from behind. At this point, Respondent and King were no more than 10-15 feet apart. Officer Bianchi turned Respondent, who could then see King on the other side of the living room area. Respondent was still enraged at King. Respondent, with Officer Bianchi trying to restrain him from behind, started toward Officer Golden, which was in the same direction as where Paul King was located. At the same time, Officer Golden started going toward Respondent. As Officer Golden met Respondent and Officer Bianchi half way across the room, Officer Golden bent forward to reach down and sweep Respondent's legs out from under him. As Officer Golden bent forward, Respondent struck him in the right eye with his closed fist, causing a small gash no more than 1/2" long under Golden's eye, which required no stitches. Officer Golden stood up, shook his head, bent forward again, and struck Respondent on the back of his legs causing Respondent to lose his balance. Respondent kept struggling with the two police officers until they handcuffed him. Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent by placing Respondent's hands behind his back. Once Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent, Officer Bianchi told Golden that Golden was bleeding and then punched Respondent in the face several times for injuring Officer Golden. Respondent was then placed under arrest. Court documents admitted in evidence indicate that Respondent was charged with battery on a police officer (Count 1) and resisting arrest with violence (Count 2). On February 21, 1991, he was found guilty of Count 1 although adjudication was withheld, was found not guilty of Count 2, and was placed on probation for 18 months. On July 17, 1991, an Order was entered as a result of a Motion for Clarification of Sentence filed by Respondent. That Order provides that the record regarding Respondent's criminal charges was amended to reflect that Respondent was guilty of battery, that adjudication was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for a period of one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-3336 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-11, 13-24, 28- 31, 33, and 34 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 12, 25, and 26 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 27 and 32 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark K. Koenig, Esquire Suite 300 Pavilion 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), should revoke Respondent's correctional officer certificate on charges that he is not of good moral character because he committed a third degree felony by introducing contraband onto the grounds of the Hillsborough County Correctional Institution (HCI) in violation of section 944.47(1)(a), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ray D. Jones, was certified by the Commission on October 7, 2003, and holds Correctional Certificate 235065. He was employed as a DOC correctional officer from February 26, 2003, until June 22, 2011. Before this matter arose, Respondent had not been disciplined by the Commission. In early 2010, Respondent was working at HCI and assigned to supervise one of two squads of inmates working outside the prison for the Hillsborough County (County) public works department. On work days, County employees would drive the County vans from a County transportation facility to the prison, drive onto prison property and down the prison's entry road, and stop at a gate in the prison's perimeter fence. There, the work squads leave HCI by passing through the gate and boarding the vans. Respondent would sit in the passenger seat in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, and the inmates would sit in the back of the van. There was a partition between the cab and the back of the van. When the vans returned to the prison at the end of the work day, the supervisors and inmates would unload outside the gate, and the vans would leave the prison. On January 4, 2011, an HCI inmate request was submitted that alleged improprieties regarding the work squads. As part of the investigation of those allegations, the County vans were inspected upon arrival at HCI on the morning of January 10, 2011. Numerous hats, some tools, duct tape, toys, food containers, purses, money, glasses, sunglasses, and other similar items were found on both vans. These items were considered to be "nuisance contraband." In addition, some scissors and three folding knives were recovered. One of the folding knives was in a cup holder in the cab of the van assigned to Respondent's squad. The other two were found in an insulated lunch bag in the cab of the van. Those two knives had blades that were sharp, pointed, and about two and a half to three inches long. The other folding knife was similar. The knives were not authorized by the appropriate prison official for use as tools. The Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was candy on the van when it was inspected. At one point, on cross examination by Respondent, Inspector Talbot testified that there was a lunch box full of candy on the van. However, when Respondent questioned him further on the premise that Respondent carried his lunch with him and that he had not passed through the gate at the time of the inspection, Inspector Talbot stated he did not recall whether "there was actually food in there, maybe one of the other inspectors will recall." No other inspector testified. Upon questioning, Respondent readily admitted that he knew the knives and other items of contraband were on the van. He explained that the knife in the cup holder was used to cut debris from lawn mower blades. The two knives in the insulated lunch bag were his personal knives. He explained that he brought them in the bag to the County transportation facility and placed the bag in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, where they stayed. He testified without contradiction that he used his knives to cut up fruit that was part of his lunch. He brought his lunch from home in another lunch bag, which he carried with him when he boarded the van. Respondent denied that any of the knives on his van ever were inside the HCI perimeter fence or that he ever allowed the inmates to have access to the knives. Although the inmates involved were assigned to a work squad, and the knives on Respondent's van were not readily accessible to them, the knives nonetheless posed a potential risk to the public, Respondent and his fellow work squad supervisor, the County van drivers, and the inmates themselves. Upon questioning, Respondent admitted giving candy to inmates. He denied sharing his personal food with inmates. Respondent stated to the inspectors that he did not think the items found during the inspection on January 10, 2011, were a "big deal." Respondent explained that he said this because similar items of nuisance contraband were found on both work squad vans inspected that day and that both vans passed monthly inspections with all the nuisance contraband in open view. Even if the folding knives were not observed in prior inspections, Respondent maintained that the inmates had no access to them and that they never were brought into the prison. DOC disagreed with Respondent and terminated his employment based on the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his "no big deal" statement. The Commission also disagreed with Respondent and contends that the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his attitude are clear and convincing proof of bad moral character. The Commission alleged and maintained in its PRO that Respondent brought the knives onto the prison grounds every day he was working as a work squad supervisor between July 1, 2008, and June 22, 2011. However, the evidence was clear that all the contraband items recovered during the inspection on January 10, 2011, including the knives, were removed from the vans at that time, and there was no evidence regarding contraband after that date. It was not clear from the evidence how long prior to the inspection the knives were in the van used by Respondent's work squad. Respondent testified that he brought the insulated lunch bag with his folding knives to the County transportation facility months prior to the inspection. There was no evidence as to how long the other knife was on the van prior to January 10, 2011. Respondent admits that he was "wrong" to have his knives on the van. He does not believe he introduced the knives into the prison. He also does not think he should lose his certification because they were in the cab of the County van and never inside the perimeter fence. Respondent testified that the supervisor of the other work squad van still is working as a correctional officer at HCI although there was not only the same kind of nuisance contraband but also a prohibited metal kitchen knife and fork in the back of his van, where it would be accessible to the inmates, when it was inspected on January 10, 2011. The evidence was not clear as to what discipline that officer received from the Commission, if any.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional certificate for two years, giving him consideration for the time he has been unemployed by DOC, and reinstating his certification as of June 22, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1987, Respondent, David E. Hancock, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-02. On March 4, 1988, Respondent, Floyd W. Winkle, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-03. In March, 1989, Respondents were employed as correctional officers by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA operates the county corrections facilities for Bay Counnty, Florida. Additionally, CCA is responsible for booking new arrestees into the jail facility. On March 11, 1989, Respondent Hancock was the supervisor of the night shift at the main jail facility in Bay County. Respondent Winkle was the booking officer. The evening of the 11th was a very heavy evening for arrests. The facility was understaffed for the numbers of arrests being processed. In fact, the holding cells, located in the basement of the jail, were full and female prisoners were being held in the interview rooms across the hall from the holding cells. Marcus Kitchens was brought to the jail in a highly intoxicated state. He was bleeding and exhibited lacerations and abrasions to his face and limbs. Mr. Kitchens was also in a very noisy and rowdy state. During the course of the evening, one of the female prisoners requested to use the restroom facilities. These facilities are located in the holding cells which were occupied by the male prisoners. The male prisoners were transfered to an interview room so that the female prisoner could use the restroom facility in the holding cell. The transfer was made by Officer Winkle. One of the inmates was Marcus Kitchens. He had not yet been officially booked into the jail. While transferring the male prisoners back to the holding cell Mr. Kitchens asked Officer Winkle for a blanket. For a number of valid security reasons jail policy does not permit a prisoner to have a blanket until the prisoner is officially booked into the facility and on his her her way to a more permanent cell. When Mr. Kitchens was told that he could not have a blanket he became violent and charged Officer Winkle, hitting the officer on the left side of face with his fist and knocking the officer's glasses off. Officer Winkle pushed Mr. Kitchens into the holding cell. Mr. Kitchens grabbed Officer Winkle by the shirt and pulled him into the holding cell with him. The two landed up against one of the walls of the holding cell and Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle several more times in the chest and abdomen with his fist. While Officer Winkle was trying to block the blows, Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle again on the left side of the face. Officer Winkle then grabbed Mr. Kitchens and put him on the floor. Officer Hancock heard the noise from the altercation and responded from another part of the basement area to the site of the altercation. By the time Officer Hancock arrived, Officer Winkle had Mr. Kitchens on the floor. Officer Winkle was sitting on top of Mr. Kitchens trying to subdue him. Officer Hancock stepped in between Officer Winkle and the inmate, put his knee into Mr. Kitchens chest, grasped the shoulder area and shoved Mr. Kitchens against the back wall of the holding cell. Officer Hancock inquired if Officer Winkle was alright. After Officer Winkle responded that he was, Officer Hancock told him to leave the cell. Officer Winkle left the cell and Officer Hancock released Mr. Kitchens from the wall. Mr. Kitchens began to charge Officer Hancock. Officer Hancock ordered him not to move and Mr. Kitchens sat back down on the floor. Officer Hancock left the cell and the door was locked. The entire altercation to the close of the cell door lasted a maximum of two and one-half minutes. It was while Respondents were in the holding cell with Mr. Kitchens that the alleged excessive use of force occurred by Officer Winkle banging Mr. Kitchens' head against the floor and hitting him three times on the side of the head with his fist after Mr. Kitchens had submitted to the officers. The use of excessive force was testified to by an officer who arrived from another part of the basement area after the altercation began and who could only have seen the last few seconds of the incident. The only testimony this officer gave regarding Officer Hancock was that while he was leaning against the cell wall he told Officer Winkle that Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after which Officer Winkle allegedly banged Mr. Kitchens' head on the floor and punched him on the side of the head. Contrary to this officer's testimony and corroborative of Respondents' testimony was the testimony of the nurse on duty at the jail facility. She did not see any excessive use of force and did not hear Officer Hancock make the statement referenced above while the officers were in the holding cell. She also testified that Mr. Kitchen's appeared to be struggling somewhat while he was on the floor. Officer Hancock testified that he told Officer Winkle Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after the officers had locked the door to the holding cell. Officer Hancock made the statement in response to Officer Winkle's complaint that he needed help in booking. The statement was meant to communicate to Officer Winkle that help would not be forthcoming and that he had to handle Mr. Kitchens during the booking process. Clearly, given the facts of this case, such a vague statement, regardless of where it was made, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Officer Hancock aided, abetted, counseled or procured any battery being effected against Mr. Kitchens. Moreover, this case boils down to a swearing match between the various parties and witnesses involved. On these facts and given the demeanor of the witnesses, such a swearing match does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have failed to maintain the good moral character required of correctional officers. Additionally, given the fact that the Respondents were subdueing a violent inmate and the very short time span in which the alleged use of force occurred it is improbable that any excessive force was used which would reflect on the character of either Respondent. Therefore the Administrative Complaints against each Respondent should be dismissed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the amended Administrative Complaints filed against David E. Hancock and Floyd W. Winkle be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be used?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued Correctional Officer Certificate number 144670. On or about January 14, 2009, Respondent was employed by Tomoka Correctional Facility (Tomoka). He had been employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) for approximately 15 years. At some point during the day, Inmate William Cash became disorderly and disruptive in his cell, and a psychological emergency was called. Officer James Hinds and Respondent came to Cash's cell to transport him to a holding cell where he could be seen by a psychologist. In preparing for the transfer, Respondent and Officer Hinds restrained Inmate Cash using handcuffs, leg irons, a waist chain, and a black box which secured Cash's handcuffs. After restraints were applied, Inmate Cash was transported to a holding cell, with Captain Darlene Taman observing the transfer. Consistent with DOC protocols, the transfer of Inmate Cash from his cell to a holding cell was videotaped. Once they arrived at the holding cell, Respondent had Inmate Cash sit down on a bench in the cell. Inmate Cash attempted to twist and pull away from Respondent's grasp. In response, Respondent reasserted his grip and raised one arm, placing his hand against Inmate Cash's neck. The inmate continued pulling away from Respondent until he was lying down on his side. Respondent did not report the incident to his Captain or complete any type of incident report regarding the events occurring in connection with the transport. Captain Taman did not actually see the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash, because she was attempting to monitor several situations simultaneously. Consistent with DOC procedure, the warden at Tomoka reviewed the videotape of the transfer. After reviewing the videotape, the warden filed a complaint with John Joiner, Senior Prison Inspector with the DOC Office of Inspector General to investigate whether there was excessive use of force with respect to the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash. A use of force occurs when a correctional officer touches an inmate who is offering resistance, applying force to overcome the inmate's resistance. Touching alone does not constitute use of force. It is the application of force to overcome resistance that is key to determining whether a use of force has occurred. When a use of force occurs, a correctional officer is required to report the use of force to his or her commanding officer; to complete a Use of Force report; and to complete an incident report on the use of force. Use of Force reports are to completed within 24 hours. Correctional officers are trained regarding use of force and the required reporting of use of force on an annual basis. Respondent did not report the incident to his supervisor and did not complete a use of force report. In his view, no use of force occurred because Inmate Cash was pulling away from him and he was not applying force to overcome Inmate Cash's resistance. According to Respondent, he attempted to get a better grip on Inmate Cash and then allowed him to lie down on his side on the bench where he was sitting. He described the event as follows: MR. DONOVAN: . . . Use of force, because you place your hands on an inmate, it does not necessarily incur a use of force. It is the resistance to that, me overcoming his resistance is what determines if there is or is not a use of force. The inmate initially pulled away from me. I reasserted my grasp and put my arm up to defend myself. Like I indicated in my interview, that is why my arm went up. He sat back down on his own and he pulled away and started leaning down on the bench to lay down. And after he got down on the bench, after the whole thing was over is when I gave him more orders to stop pulling away, because he continued to pull away from me. I knew he was restrained -- completely restrained, i.e., leg irons, black box, the waist chain and the -- the handcuffs, which is why I didn't use the force. I just wanted to be sure that I had control of the situation, that I had control of him, so that I didn't get hurt or he didn't get hurt. I have been kicked by inmates. I have been spit on and head-butted by inmates, who were completely restrained, such as Mr. Cash was restrained that day. And I know through my training, that just because you touch an inmate, it's not use of force; that you have to -- you have to overcome the resistance that he's presenting to you in order for it to be a use of force. I did not do that. I did not force him to sit down. As he tugged away, he sat down on his own. And then after I reasserted my grasp to make sure that I had ahold of him and was in control of the situation, he laid down on his own. I do not know why; if it was just an attempt to continue to try to get away from me. However, he did all of that on his own. I did not push him down. The video of the incident was observed by both Captain Taman, Respondent's supervisor, and by Inspector Joiner. Both believed, as did Officer Hinds, that the exchange between Respondent and Inmate Cash involved a use of force. It is found that there was a use of force, but that the force used was not excessive. Inspector Joiner interviewed Respondent as a part of the investigation of the incident on January 19, 2010. His response during the interview was consistent with his testimony at hearing: that he did not file a report on use of force because he did not believe a use of force occurred and that, in his view, there was nothing to report. Respondent's testimony was candid, credible and sincere. He believed what he said in the interview and at hearing. However, his ultimate conclusion regarding the use of force was in error.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Donovan Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's correctional certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint filed on April 25, 1995, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Oliver Rawls, is a certified correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate No. 76362 on January 29, 1982, by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission). When the relevant events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer by the Gulf Correctional Institution (GCI) in Wewahitchka, Florida. In an Administrative Complaint filed on April 25, 1995, as later amended on June 5, 1998, the Commission charged that: on July 30, 1993, Respondent committed "acts constituting sexual harassment against Angela Godwin," a correctional officer at GCI, by "grabbing her and attempting to kiss her against her will;" (b) on October 20, 1992, Respondent committed "acts constituting sexual harassment against Ima Millender," a correctional officer at GCI, by "calling her into his office and telling her that he had begun to care for her and when she spurned his advances, followed her home after work and attempted to stop her vehicle;" and (c) on May 4, 1994, Respondent did "intentionally strike Eula J. Rochelle, a former correctional officer . . . by trying to force his way into her home without her permission, [and] scratched and bruised her arm." Respondent disputed these allegations and initiated this proceeding. Angela Godwin was a correctional officer at GCI from June 1993 to August 1994. Respondent was her immediate supervisor during her employment. She was originally assigned to work in the officer's station of the E dormitory during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On the evening of July 30, 1993, Godwin was working in the officer's station when Respondent knocked on the door. She let him in while he signed a logbook and answered a telephone call. Respondent then asked Godwin to let him into an adjoining laundry room. When she opened the door, and followed him a short ways into the darkened room, he grabbed Godwin by her shoulders and pulled her towards him trying to kiss her. Godwin pushed Respondent away and told him to stop. Respondent then allowed her to return to duty. Even so, Godwin was "frightened" by Respondent's conduct and felt intimidated. When the incident occurred, Godwin was on probation and was afraid to report the incident for fear of losing her job. Shortly thereafter, Respondent had Godwin transferred from the control room to the tower, which is a less desirable assignment. It can be reasonably inferred that this employment decision was based on Godwin's rejection of Respondent's advances. Ima Millender was a correctional officer at GCI from September 1992 until September 1996. Respondent served as her supervisor. In October 1992, Millender worked the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift in the control room. On October 20, 1992, Respondent summoned Millender to his office, which was down a hallway behind the control room. After handing her some papers to type, he told her he "had feelings" for her that were other "than job-related feelings," that he "really cared" for her, and he was "having trouble working around [her because of] his feelings." Respondent also knew that Millender car-pooled with two other officers to work, and he told her that he had reassigned those officers so that she "would have at least one night [a week] driving back and forth by [herself]." Although Millender felt "uncomfortable" by Respondent's statements, and they created an intimidating working environment, she said nothing at the time because she was on probation. The next evening, Millender was driving home alone around 11:30 p.m. on State Road 71. A car drove up behind her and the driver began blinking his lights. The car then pulled along side her car, and she recognized Respondent's vehicle. Respondent then pulled in front of her, braked, and forced her off the road. Millender immediately locked her doors, rolled down one window and asked him what he thought he was doing, and then evaded him by driving over the grass median. Millender filled out an Incident Report on October 22, 1992, in which she described the conversation which occurred in Respondent's office. She later decided not to file the report. Eula J. Rochelle was a correctional officer at GCI from February 1993 to February 1994. Respondent also served as her immediate supervisor. During her tenure at GCI, at Respondent's behest, Rochelle engaged in an "intimate relationship" with Respondent but eventually resigned her position to end the affair. On the morning of May 4, 1994, Respondent came to her home in Panama City and knocked on the door. When she cracked open the door, Respondent attempted to force his way into the home. During a struggle at the door, Respondent grabbed Rochelle's hair and bruised her. By doing so, Respondent committed battery upon the victim. Rochelle eventually broke free and called 911 to report the incident. When the police were called, Respondent immediately left the home. Although Respondent was charged with battery, Rochelle later withdrew the charges because she "did not wish to get him in trouble" or cause him "to lose his job." Respondent's correctional certificate was placed on probation by the Commission during the period of December 21, 1994, through June 20, 1995, for driving under the influence of alcohol. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered not to violate any provision within Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 11B-27, Florida Administrative Code. Since all offenses described herein occurred before the period of probation, Respondent did not violate the terms of the Commission's order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character as required by state law, and that his law enforcement certificate be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael R. Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Oliver Rawls
Findings Of Fact Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed as a Correctional Officer by the Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Glades Correctional Institute for approximately two years. On April 3, 1987, Petitioner signed a written statement acknowledging that he was immediately responsible for reading the rules of the Respondent. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Edward Minor, Correctional Officer Supervisor at Glades Correctional Institute. Mr. Chester Lambdin is the Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institute. Although he felt ill, Petitioner reported to work on January 25, 1989 before his scheduled eight hour work shift was to begin at midnight and continue through January 26, 1989. Petitioner left work due to his illness before the end of his January 26, 1989 shift. Petitioner did not report to work after he left on January 26, 1989. On January 26, 1989, Petitioner contacted his supervisor, Mr. Minor, and informed him that he was ill; that he would not report to work for about two days and that he had a doctor's excuse for his absence. Mr. Minor excused Petitioner for two days, January 27, 1989 and January 28, 1989. Petitioner's doctor's excuse covered the period of January 27, 1989 through January 30, 1989. Petitioner gave the excuse to a fellow worker and requested the associate to deliver the excuse to Mr. Minor. Before February 2, 1989, Mr. Minor did not see the excuse. Petitioner did not contact Mr. Minor until the afternoon or evening of February 2, 1989. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on January 30 or January 31, 1989. Petitioner stated that he knew he should contact his supervisor before each work shift if he were ill and would not report to work, but he stated that most of his fellow workers did not follow the procedure and were not penalized for failure to make the required report. Notice before an absence is the standard policy of the Respondent. Petitioner was on unauthorized leave on January 29, 1989, February 1, 1989 and February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989, Mr. Lambdin drafted a letter to Petitioner, which was posted by certified mail, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position as a Correctional Officer I at Glades Correctional Institution and to have resigned from the career service system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a final order that the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of May 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of May 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1189 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 in this case. The Respondent was the sole party who submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2; rejected in part as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. As to first sentence, rejected as irrelevant. As to the remainder, adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Lynne Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mr. Lewis C. Stewart 692 Waddel Way Pahokee, Florida 33476 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Varga, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
