Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the. administrative complaint, Respondent, Michael James Hanly, was a licensed registered nurse, license no. RN 78035-2. On or about November 18, 1987, the Board of Nursing entered a final order regarding disciplinary action against this Respondent. The final order found the Respondent guilty of improper conduct and specified the following penalties: The licensee shall pay an administrative fine of $500.00 within 6 months. The licensee is hereby placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: The licensee shall not violate any Federal or State law, nor any rule or order of the Board of Nursing. The licensee shall submit written reports to the Board, which contain the licensee's name, license number, current address, current employer's name, address and telephone number, and a statement by the licensee describing his nursing employment and performance These reports shall be submitted quarterly, as scheduled by the Board probation section. The licensee shall enroll in and successfully complete, in addition to normally required continuing education courses, courses in the following subject areas: medical ethical considerations and legal aspects of nursing within six (6) months from the filing of this Order. * * * While employed as a nurse, the licensee shall be responsible for causing reports to be furnished by his employer to the Board; these reports shall set out the licensee's current position, work assignment, level of performance, and any problems. The reports shall be submitted every three months as scheduled by-the Board probation section. If employed otherwise than as a nurse, the licensee shall report the position, employer and place of employment to the Board section on the scheduled quarterly dates. If not employed, the licensee shall so notify the Board probation section on the scheduled quarterly dates. Any deviation from the requirements of this probation without the prior written consent of the Board shall constitute a violation of this probation. Subsequent to the entry of the final order, the Respondent did not submit reports, did not complete the continuing education, and did not pay the administrative fine. On June 10, 1988, the Department wrote to the Respondent to notify him that the terms of the final order had not been met. This letter was received by the Respondent on June 14, 1988. On June 29, 1988, the Department again wrote to the Respondent to advise him that he was delinquent and in violation of the final order. This letter was received by the Respondent on July 12, 1988. Upon receipt of the correspondence described in paragraph 3, Respondent replied to the Department by stating that the matters addressed in the final order were on appeal to the district court of appeal. The Respondent did not pay the administrative fine nor seek additional time within which to comply with the remaining terms of the final order. Finally, the Department wrote to Respondent on July 22, 1988, acknowledged that the final order had been appealed, but informed Respondent that he was required to comply with the final order unless a stay were entered by the appellate court. Respondent did not obtain a stay from the appellate court and, as of the date of the hearing, had not complied with the terms of the final order entered November 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Nursing enter a final order which finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250, and lengthens the period of Respondent's probation to four years. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted that the Respondent filed an appeal which was assigned case no. 88- 1069; whether that appeal was timely or complied with the provisions of Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, is unknown and not a part of this record. It is accepted that the parties, for purposes of the hearing, believed the appeal to be proper. Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. The Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. An ex parte communication was submitted on June 19, 1989, which is rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 M. James Hanly, R.N. Post Office Box 1472 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
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 issue presented is whether Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO or Petitioner) properly terminated Christopher Hamilton (Respondent) from his employment as a deputy sheriff for engaging in conduct prohibited in Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulations 3.4(d) and 5.21, and General Order Section 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for providing law enforcement and corrections in Pinellas County, Florida. At all times pertinent to these cases, Petitioner employed Respondent as a deputy sheriff. Respondent does not dispute that his conduct violated Petitioner’s rules and regulations. Respondent alleges that the penalty of termination is excessive, inconsistent with the progressive discipline policy, and, therefore, disparate. General Order 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.4(d), relates to “Performance of Duty.” The cited provisions require that “All members will be efficient and effective in their assigned duties, performing them in a competent, proficient and capable manner.” For convenience, the cited provisions are referred to as Rule 3.4(d). The evidence shows that from March 2004 through August 8, 2008, Respondent demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating Rule 3.4(d). The individual violations are undisputed, and it is undisputed that the violations arose from Respondent’s inability to complete required reports, to do so in a timely manner, and to be punctual in attendance. It is also undisputed that the violations arose from events in Respondent’s personal life, which included a divorce and custody battle that precipitated a financial crisis for Respondent and the death of Respondent’s father. Finally, Respondent acknowledged during cross-examination that Petitioner attempted to “work with” Respondent during his personal crises. Petitioner first disciplined Respondent for violating Rule 3.4(d) in March 2004. In January 2005, Petitioner issued a formal reprimand for a second violation. Petitioner issued a second formal reprimand for the third violation in February 2005. In May 2007, Petitioner issued a third formal reprimand for a fourth violation of Rule 3.4(d). On December 6, 2007, Petitioner issued a written reprimand to Respondent for a fifth violation of Rule 3.4(d). On April 10, 2008, Petitioner found Respondent to be a Chronic Offender, as defined hereinafter, and suspended Respondent for seven days for violation of Rule 3.4(d). In June of 2008, Respondent again violated Rule 3.4(d) by failing to complete and submit reports within the required timeframe. Respondent violated Rule 3.4(d) on May 27, 2008, and again on June 24, 2008. Petitioner notified Respondent that he was required to attend a Vehicle Crash Review Board (VCRB) on May 27, 2008. However, Respondent failed to attend the VCRB. Petitioner re-scheduled the VCRB for June 24, 2008, and notified Respondent that he was required to attend that VCRB. Respondent failed to attend the VCRB on June 24, 2008. General Order 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17, relates to “Timeliness.” The cited provisions state that “Members shall not be late to work without valid reason or authorization,” The cited provisions are referred to for convenience as Rule 2.17. Respondent violated Rule 2.17 by being late to work on February 28 and March 8, 2008. Petitioner disciplined Respondent for both offenses in a single written reprimand. Respondent violated Rule 2.17 by being late to work again sometime between June 18 and July 2, 2008. On or about August 8, 2008, Respondent reported to work approximately 30 minutes late in violation of Rule 2.17, and this proceeding began. On September 11, 2008, Petitioner conducted an Administrative Review Board (ARB) meeting at which Respondent testified. The ARB concluded that Respondent had violated Rules 3.4(d) and 2.17 and found Respondent to be a Chronic Offender of both rules. General Order 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.21 (Rule 5.21), defines “Chronic Offender” as a member of the PCSO who violates the same rule or regulation three or more times within an 18-month period. Respondent is a Chronic Offender of Rules 3.4(d) and 2.17. Respondent violated each rule three or more times within an 18-month period. The progressive discipline policy treats Chronic Offender violations as a more severe “Level Five” violation. Petitioner has issued written guidelines that are followed during the disciplinary process and are contained within General Order 10-2. The goal of General Order 10-2 is to standardize the disciplinary process and make the process fair and consistent in application. Consistency is important to ensure fairness for the member being disciplined and for maintaining accountability throughout the agency. General Order 10-2 sets forth a procedure for assigning points for sustained violations based on their severity level. The points range from Level Five to Level One. Level Five violations result in the most serious discipline. The total of points to be assigned in these cases is determined by considering Respondent’s prior disciplinary record. Additional points are assigned for disciplinary violations within the recent past. Total disciplinary points are comprised of points for the current offense, plus carryover points for recent discipline against Respondent. The range of discipline that is appropriate in these cases is based upon the total number of disciplinary points accumulated. The highest or most severe discipline applies because Respondent accumulated more than 100 discipline points. Respondent’s point total in Case No. 08-4823 is 108.3 points. Authorized discipline ranges from a 15-day suspension to termination of employment. Respondent’s point total in Case No. 08-4824 is 116 points. Authorized discipline ranges from a 15-day suspension to termination of employment. Termination of employment is reasonable in this proceeding. Termination of employment does not impose disparate discipline on Respondent. From 2005 through the date of the final hearing, nine members of the PCSO have been disciplined within the same discipline range as Respondent. Petitioner terminated the employment of seven of those nine members of the PCSO. Four of Respondent’s exhibits are excerpts of the case files of other PCSO members charged with violating Rule 5.21 as was Respondent. In each case, the alleged violation of the Level Five Chronic Offender rule was based upon repeated violations of Level Three rules. Respondent’s Exhibits 2 and 3 each show a member who violated the Level 3 rule, pertaining to abuse of sick leave a sufficient number of times to be considered a Chronic Offender in violation of Rule 5.21. In both cases, it was the member’s first Chronic Offender violation. Authorized discipline ranged from a suspension to termination of employment. In each case, the member received the minimum length of suspension, which is the minimum discipline in General Order 10-2. This is comparable to and consistent with the seven-day suspension Petitioner imposed against Respondent for his first violation of the Chronic Offender rule. The remaining proposed comparator introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 relates to an agency member disciplined for being a Chronic Offender based on repeated violations of Rule 3.4(d). This was the member’s first violation as a Chronic Offender in Rule 5.21. Like Respondent’s seven-day suspension for his first offense as a Chronic Offender, the member in Respondent’s Exhibit 1 received a suspension corresponding to the bottom of the disciplinary range under the disciplinary policy. Prior to Respondent, no other agency member had been found to have violated the Chronic Offender rule a second time. However, Petitioner’s Exhibit 5 shows that subsequent to Respondent’s discipline, the member referenced by Respondent’s Exhibit 2 was disciplined for violating Rule 5.21 a second time. In similar fashion to Respondent, this member was disciplined as a Chronic Offender for the second time with respect to accumulated violations of the same Level Three rule as the first time he was found to be a Chronic Offender. Like Respondent, this member received the minimum suspension for the first violation of Rule 5.21 and was terminated for the second.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order terminating the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Afienko, Esquire Kenneth J. Afienko, P.A. 560 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Office of County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since March 26, 2007, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 264941. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (Department) as a correctional officer and assigned to the Everglades Correctional Institution (ECI). Tony Pesante is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, employed by the Department as a law enforcement inspector and assigned to ECI. Brian White is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, employed by the Department as a canine inspector and assigned to the Department's Office of the Inspector General. On August 8, 2007, his canine partner was Ziggy, a certified narcotics detection dog. On or about August 6, 2007, Inspector Pesante received a tip from an inmate that Respondent was going to be bringing narcotics to ECI on August 8, 2007. Inspector Pesante observed Respondent when she parked her car in the ECI staff parking lot on August 8, 2007, and exited the vehicle. The parking lot is located on the grounds of ECI. Inspector White and Ziggy were summoned to the parking lot. Ziggy alerted to the presence of narcotics in Respondent's vehicle. Inspectors Pesante and White then searched the vehicle (after they had Respondent unlock it). In the vehicle, they found a small amount of cannabis, a partially full bottle of Absolut Vodka,2 and various letters and other written materials, including correspondence from inmates. Following the search of the vehicle, Inspector Pesante instructed Respondent to "wait in the lobby [of the facility] while [he] was getting ready to interview her." Instead of waiting in the lobby, Respondent got into her vehicle and drove off. Her employment was subsequently terminated, and she never returned to the facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of "fail[ing] to maintain good moral character" and revoking her certification based on this finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of July, 2008.
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 The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a restricted barber and operating under the name of Miracles in Motion, located in Tampa, Florida. On May 9, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006030590 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by July 9, has not been paid. On October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058259 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Also on October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058271 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. On October 24, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006063364 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Respondent did not dispute the facts contained in these four Citations. Under the terms of the Citations, they, therefore, automatically became final orders 30 days after they were issued. Since Respondent has not paid those fines, he fails to be in compliance with four final orders of the Department. The total amount of fines not paid by Respondent pursuant to the four Citations involved in this proceeding is $1,300.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 476.204(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elvis O'Neil Crooks 7117 Wrenwood Circle Tampa, Florida 33617
The Issue Whether Respondent, a corrections officer, has failed to maintain the qualification to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 19, 1993, as a Corrections Officer, Certification Number 136191. Respondent’s certification is active. At all times relevant, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Central Florida Reception Center. On November 5, 1994, Karen Mills was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff’s office. At the time of the event, Officer Mills had been working under cover for five years with the City/County Investigative Bureau. Officer Mills was working undercover at one o’clock on a Saturday morning posing as a prostitute on the sidewalk and parking lot located at State Road 427 and Pomosa in Sanford, Florida. On November 5, 1994, Mills approached a black male driving a Toyota car, later identified as the Respondent, Travis Long, when he stopped for a traffic light at the corner of State Road 427 and Pomosa. After idle conversation, the Respondent asked what she was doing. She advised that she was trying to make some money. He asked her if she would “take it up the ass?” She took that to mean that he wanted anal intercourse. Mills said yes and asked him how much money he was willing to pay. Respondent said $25.00. Mills said she wanted $40.00. Respondent agreed but stated that he would have to go get the money from an ATM and also that he wanted to get something to eat. He asked Mills if she wanted to go with him to get something to eat. Mills declined. Mills did not immediately arrest Respondent because she wanted to see the money to confirm that he was there to buy sex. Respondent left the area and returned 20 minutes later. Upon his return, Respondent asked Mills if she was a cop and asked her to pull up her shirt to prove that she was not carrying a recording device (a wire). Mills asked Respondent if he was a cop. He said no, and ultimately exposed his penis as a way to prove it to her. Mills asked Respondent to show her the money and kept encouraging him to do so, by saying, “You ain’t gonna pay me . . . You ain’t got no money. I just want to be sure I’m gonna get paid.” Respondent finally showed Mills the money and mouthed, without speaking, “I will pay you.” As soon as she saw the money, Mills, who was wearing a wire, gave the predetermined code. Respondent began to pull away in his vehicle but other officers pulled him over and arrested him. Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, a second degree misdemeanor, in the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, on January 5, 1995. Respondent was adjudicated guilty, and a $100 fine was imposed. Respondent’s testimony that, although he conducted himself as above stated, he did not have the intent to solicit for prostitution on the night of November 5, 1994, is not credible. Respondent was an energetic, hard-working individual. Respondent had no prior criminal or employment discipline problems prior to this incident. Respondent has continued in his current position as a corrections officer in the three years since the incident and has received above-average ratings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent's certification be SUSPENDED for a period of six months and that the Commission impose such conditions on his reinstatement as it deems reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Bardill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character as required by chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.011, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. (2009).2/ Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by Petitioner on July 8, 2009, and holds Correctional Certificate Number 284876. In February through May, 2010, the time frame relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Miami-Dade Correctional Institute ("Miami-Dade CI"). Incident Giving Rise to this Proceeding On or about July 29, 2010, Captain Eric Parrish, a midnight shift supervisor at Miami-Dade CI, convened a meeting of several employees under his supervision. Among those present at the meeting were Respondent and Officer Demetrices Demeritte. The purpose of the meeting was to address rumors regarding alleged sexual activity among staff members while present or on duty at Miami-Dade CI.3/ Ultimately, these rumors were determined to be unsubstantiated. However, at the meeting, Demeritte informed Parrish that Respondent had exposed his penis to her while they both were on duty at Miami-Dade CI. Respondent verbally admitted at the meeting that he did show Demeritte his penis, but stated that she had wanted to see it. Parrish ordered everyone in attendance at the meeting to complete an incident report after the close of the meeting.4/ Consistent with Petitioner's standard practice regarding the completion of incident reports, Parrish requested that the reports be submitted by the end of the shift.5/ This gave the employees approximately four hours to complete their reports. Ultimately, Parrish collected completed incident reports from all in attendance at the meeting, including Respondent. In his incident report, Respondent stated that he and Demeritte had engaged in discussions regarding sexual matters on more than one occasion. Respondent acknowledged that he exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion when they had discussed its size, and that upon seeing it, Demeritte took off in her post vehicle. The next day she asked him not to do that again because he was not "her man." Respondent stated that he apologized to Demeritte and considered the matter resolved between them as friends. Based on the information provided in the incident reports, Parrish recommended that Respondent and others be reviewed for disciplinary action. On or about December 6, 2011, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that he had failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.17, by having engaged in acts that constitute indecent exposure pursuant to section 800.03. Violation of section 800.03 is a misdemeanor of the first degree. § 800.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no evidence in the record that Respondent was arrested or prosecuted for, convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to, a violation of section 800.03. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing At hearing, Demeritte testified that while she and Respondent were on duty inspecting the fence line or refueling vehicles or at other posts, Respondent exposed his penis to her on four separate occasions. In doing so, he would tell her to "look" and would watch her while exposing himself. Demeritte testified that on one of these occasions, he stroked his penis. Demeritte testified that she was uncomfortable and offended by Respondent's actions, that she considered his actions vulgar, and that on each occasion, she drove away. After she finally confronted Respondent, he apologized and never exposed himself to her again. The undersigned finds Demeritte's testimony credible and persuasive. Demeritte reported the incidents to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, not until the July 29, 2010, meeting did she report the incidents to Petitioner. Demeritte claimed that she did not report the incidents due to a "breach of confidentiality." No specific explanation was provided regarding what the breach of confidentiality entailed or why it deterred Demeritte from reporting the incidents before July 29, 2010. At the hearing, Respondent recanted his statement in his July 29, 2010, incident report that he had exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion. Respondent testified that the statements in his report were "sarcastic" and that he had needed more time to complete his incident report. However, Parrish credibly testified that near the end of the shift, Respondent told him he was still working on the incident report, but that at the end of the shift, Respondent provided the completed, signed, dated report and did not ask for more time to complete the report. Respondent denied having exposed his penis to Demeritte while on duty, and testified that he previously had performed as a dancer at private functions and that she may have seen his penis under those circumstances. Respondent's testimony on these points was not credible. Consistent with his incident report, Respondent testified that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature on several occasions. There is no other evidence in the record directly corroborating or refuting this claim. However, the evidence does establish that around the time of the incidents at issue in this proceeding, there was discussion of, and rumors regarding, sexual matters between officers employed on the midnight shift at Miami-Dade CI. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds credible Respondent's account that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature. The undersigned does not find credible any claim by Respondent that Demeritte wanted or asked him to expose his penis to her. However, the undersigned finds it plausible that Respondent may not have understood that Demeritte was offended by his actions, particularly if they engaged in discussions of a sexual nature, and also given that she did not tell him, until after the fourth incident, to not expose himself to her. Indeed, once she told him not to expose himself to her, his behavior ceased and he apologized. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent previously has been subject to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent exposed his penis to Demeritte on four separate occasions, in violation of section 800.03, and that in doing so, he failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.13(7). Respondent's behavior in exposing himself to Demeritte was inappropriate and unacceptable. However, the undersigned finds that the circumstances afoot around the time of Respondent's actions——specifically, discussions and rumors of sexual matters between staff, discussions of a sexual nature between Respondent and Demeritte, and the fact that Demeritte did not tell Respondent to stop exposing himself to her until after he had done so four times——may have created an atmosphere that led Respondent, mistakenly, to believe that such behavior was not a significant departure from the accepted norm on the Miami-Dade CI midnight shift at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional officer certification for a period of six months, imposing two years' probation, and ordering Respondent to undergo counseling. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 6th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has violated statutory provisions relating to the practice of architecture, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed as an architect in the State of Florida. His license has been under suspension since April 27, 1978. On April 7, 1978, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, entered an Order adjudging the Respondent guilty of the following offenses: Unlawfully and knowingly conspiring with persons to commit an offense against the United States, that is: to conduct and participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, participation in the conduct of these affairs, and mail fraud; in violation of Sections 1962 (d), 1962(c), 2 and 1341, Title 18, United States Code, as charged in Counts 1, 2, 28 and 29 of the indictment. The Respondent was sentenced to serve ten years in prison based upon the convictions of Counts 1 and 2, and five years based upon the convictions as to Counts 28 and 29, with all four sentences to run concurrently. The Respondent appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. His conviction was affirmed. The Respondent sought relief in the United States Supreme Court without avail. The Respondent's conviction is now final, and he has apparently begun serving his prison sentence.
The Issue Whether Respondent has failed to maintain "good moral character," as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since May 27, 1998, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, holding Correctional Certificate Number 180451. Respondent presently works as a security guard for Vanguard Security, a Broward County security company. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed as a detention deputy by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) and assigned to work the 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift at the Plantation Key detention facility (Facility) where he was responsible for inmate care, custody, and control. Janice Kincer is a 32-year-old female with two felony convictions on her record. At all times material to the instant case, Ms. Kincer was an inmate at the Facility, being held on a misdemeanor battery charge. The Sheriff's Office had transported Ms. Kincer to the Facility because she had to make a court appearance in Plantation Key on the morning of October 21, 2002. Ms. Kincer arrived at the Facility on the evening of October 20, 2002. At no time prior to her arrival at the Facility had Ms. Kincer ever met Respondent. Respondent acted as Ms. Kincer's "receiving officer" at the Facility, placing her in her holding cell and bringing her her personal belongings. Immediately after getting Ms. Kincer situated in her cell, Respondent started making comments to her about her physical appearance. He told Ms. Kincer, who was dressed in shorts, that her legs were "really nice" and that he "wanted to see [her] without [her] pants." He also commented that he would "like[] to see [her hair, which was in a ponytail] down." Ms. Kincer has a large tattoo of a panther "between [her] belt line and [her] knee." Respondent asked Ms. Kincer if he could see all of the tattoo. In response to this request, Ms. Kincer "lifted [her] shorts" and showed Respondent what he had asked to see. Throughout this first evening that Ms. Kincer was at the Facility, Respondent returned to her cell to visit with her on various occasions. The conversations he initiated with her during these visits, for the most part, "referred to sex." Ms. Kincer's efforts to change the subject were, in large measure, unsuccessful. During one of these conversations, Respondent urged Ms. Kincer to "let [him] touch it," referring to Ms. Kincer's vaginal area. Ms. Kincer refused Respondent's entreaties, telling him that she just "wanted to lay down and go to sleep." Respondent left following this exchange, but he returned to Ms. Kincer's cell shortly thereafter. Ms. Kincer was in her bed, partially covered by a blanket and wearing only a sweatshirt and sports bra. She was awake, but when she heard Respondent enter her cell and call her name, she pretended to be asleep and did not respond to Respondent. She "figured if [she] just . . . made it like [she] was asleep [Respondent] wouldn't bother [her]." She was wrong. Respondent proceeded to walk up to her bed, reach under the blanket, place his hand between her legs and touch her vaginal area. Upon being touched by Respondent, Ms. Kincer "jumped up" and asked Respondent "[w]hat [he was] doing." Respondent replied that he "just wanted to know if [Ms. Kincer was] getting in the shower," to which Ms. Kincer responded, she had already taken a shower, as Respondent was aware. Respondent then exited the cell. On his way out, he told Ms. Kincer that he would see her the following day. The next morning (the morning of October 21, 2002), Ms. Kincer reported to a sheriff's deputy working the day shift at the Facility what Respondent had done to her the previous evening. Geni Hernandez, who was then an inspector with the Internal Affairs unit of the Sheriff's Office, was assigned to investigate Ms. Kincer's complaint against Respondent. Inspector Hernandez went to the Facility at around noon on October 21, 2002, to meet with Ms. Kincer. After being told by Ms. Kincer about Respondent's conduct the evening before, Inspector Hernandez sought, and received, Ms. Kincer's consent to place hidden audio and video surveillance equipment in Ms. Kincer's cell to obtain evidence concerning Respondent's interactions with Ms. Kincer. The equipment was installed before the beginning of Respondent's shift on October 21, 2002, without Respondent's knowledge. After Respondent reported to work for his shift that evening, he entered Ms. Kincer's cell while Ms. Kincer was taking a shower and walked toward the shower stall. Seeing Respondent approach her, Ms. Kincer yelled out to him that she was in the shower and that she wanted him to leave. Respondent, however, continued toward the shower stall. When he got to the stall partition (which was locked), he "put his arm over [it] in order to touch [Ms. Kincer]," who was standing naked in the stall. Unable, with his outstretched arm, to reach Ms. Kincer (who resisted his efforts to touch her), Respondent tried to unlock the partition to gain access to the stall. He stopped and quickly left the cell when he heard noise coming from the hallway. As he was leaving, he asked Ms. Kincer, as he had done previously, if he could "touch it." Ms. Kincer replied that she would let him "touch it later." Later that evening, after Ms. Kincer had finished showering and getting dressed, Respondent returned to her cell on several occasions and engaged in further conversation with her. Respondent was "relentless" in his efforts to verbally persuade Ms. Kincer to engage in sexual activity with him. Ms. Kincer rebuffed Respondent's advances. She told him that she was married and, in any event, she did not feel well. She also expressed concerns that, if she engaged in sexual activity with Respondent, she would get caught and get in trouble. Respondent tried to assure Ms. Kincer that, if they engaged in sexual activity, no one would find out. He told her that it would be "real quick" and be over before anyone noticed what they were doing. He encouraged her to pull her panties down, but she refused. Respondent ultimately gave up on his efforts to convince Ms. Kincer to engage in sexual activity with him, and he left her alone. After Respondent's shift had ended, Inspector Hernandez interviewed Ms. Kincer (who left the Facility shortly following the interview). In addition to speaking with Ms. Kincer, Inspector Hernandez viewed the surveillance footage taken from Ms. Kincer's cell. Ms. Kincer did not expect to, nor did she, receive favorable treatment as a result of her complaining about Respondent to the Sheriff's Office and then cooperating with the Sheriff's Office in its investigation of her complaint. Respondent was not only terminated from his employment with the Sheriff's Office, but was also arrested, for his inappropriate dealings with Ms. Kincer. The criminal charges against him, however, were eventually dropped.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final oder finding that Respondent failed to maintain "good moral character" when he, on or about October 21, 2002, "solicit[ed]" an inmate under his supervision to engage in sexual activity with him and disciplining him for this "failure to maintain good moral character" by revoking his certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2005.
