Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Wenceslao Manuel Lora (Lora), was the chief executive officer of, as well as a director of, respondent, ABA Professional Association, Inc. (ABA), a business located in Miami, Florida. On November 6, 1990, the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the decision of the Department of State, Division of Licensing, to revoke the licensure of Lora, a private investigator and repossessor, based on his 1985 conviction for burglary, unlawful interception of oral and wire communication, and criminal conspiracy. Since such time, neither Lora nor ABA have been licensed to provide private investigative services in the State of Florida. In April 1991, Lora met with a salesperson for Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation (Southern Bell) to renew the advertisements ABA had run in the Southern Bell yellow page directory for Dade County, Florida, the previous year. As ultimately approved by Lora in June 1992, the display advertisement for the 1991-92 yellow page directory was substantially the same as that run the prior year, and ABA secured listings under the yellow page headings of "Detective Agencies," "Investigators," "Lie Detection Services," and "Polygraph Examiners & Service." As published in the September 1991 Southern Bell yellow page directory the display advertisement appearing under the yellow page heading of "Detective Agencies" stated that ABA was available to provide the following services: . MISSING PERSONS-SPECIALTY WITH CHILDREN . SURVEILLANCE-VIDEO-PHOTOGRAPHY . INTELLECTUAL ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES . BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS (CRIMINAL & CIVIL) . REPORTS WITHIN MINUTES . MULTI LINGUAL STAFF . INTELLIGENCE DATA AVAILABLE & FINANCIAL REPORTS . POLYGRAPH TEST The display advertisement further represented that most major credit cards were acceptable forms of payment, and that ABA was licensed, bonded and insured. In addition to the display advertisement that appeared under the heading "Detective Agencies," the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory also carried at Lora's request, a similar, although smaller, display advertisement for ABA under the heading of "Investigators," and under the headings of "Lie Detection Services" carried ABA's name and telephone number and under the heading "Polygraph Examiners & Service" directed the reader to "See Our Ad At Detective Agencies." As a consequence of the appearance of the foregoing advertisements in the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory, petitioner filed the administrative complaint at issue in this proceeding, which charges respondents with violating the provisions of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by conducting or advertising the business of a private investigative agency after revocation of licensure. However, apart from demonstrating that respondents advertised as providing, for consideration, private investigations, there was no compelling proof that, as a consequence of such advertisements or otherwise, the respondents actually engaged in the business of furnishing private investigations. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding the respondents guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the sum of $1,000.00 against respondents, jointly and severally. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 6th day of November 1992.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1983, the Respondent, George S. Williams, submitted to the Division of Licensing, office of the Secretary of State, an application form for a Class "E" Repossessor's license in the State of Florida and enclosed with it the $25 filing fee. In Section 7 of the form, dealing with the applicant's employment history for the five years prior to the application, Respondent listed, inter alia, employment with Adams' Investigations, Inc., in Orlando, Florida, during the periods November 1979 to October 1980, and October 1982 to May 3, 1983. In the sworn Affidavit of Experience attached to the application, Respondent indicated that during the first period of employment with Adams, he handled actual repossessions in the field. During the course of his case investigation leading up to the issuance of Respondent's license, Willie Rister, an investigator for the Division of Licensing, interviewed the Respondent. During this interview, Respondent told Mr. Rister that during both periods of employment with Adams Investigations, Inc., listed in the application, he was performing repossessions for Adams as a salaried employee at $400 per week. The "EE" repossessor intern license did not exist under Florida Law until July 1, 1980, when the Florida Legislature revised Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Notice of the change in the law requiring the need for "EE" licenses was not sent out to current "A" license holders until March 30, 1981. In fact, forms did not exist for applying for the Class "EE" license until well after the effective date of the new legislation. Under the preexisting legislation, holders of Class "A" or Class "C" licenses could conduct repossessions. The new law provided that holders of Class "A" licenses could apply for and receive a new Class "E" license by submitting a complete application, along with an application fee, by May 14, 1981. This savings clause applied to holders of Class "A" licenses, But not to those who had no license at all. Under the new law, repossession work required either a Class "E" license, to work alone, or a Class "EE" license, to work for a licensed agency with an "E" license. Here, Respondent had not been previously licensed and held no license at all, "A," "C," "E," or "EE," until his "E" license was issued on May 21, 1983, and acted as are possessor, unlicensed, until that date.
Recommendation That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $50.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a Class "C" private investigator and Class "MA" agency manager, having been issued licenses numbered C-0002856 and NA-8600240, respectively. On or about November 10, 1988, Respondent was engaged in an investigation and surveillance involving Joseph King to determine if King was disabled for purposes of a worker's compensation claim which was being disputed by the insurance carrier. As a result of Respondent's investigation, King was eventually denied certain benefits which he would otherwise have received. Respondent was performing this work through the Hillsborough County branch office of TRACE, Inc., a licensed private investigative agency which he managed. He was accompanied in this investigation and surveillance of King by two other licensed private investigators. During the course of this investigation,and surveillance, King became aware of Respondent and the other two investigators who were following him. He confronted one of the investigators named Tony Hobbs, and after it became apparent that King was preventing Hobbs from leaving, Respondent came to his aid and attempted to calm down the situation. King continued to refuse to allow the investigators to leave, and eventually Deputy Sheriffs arrived and secured Hobbs' release. At hearing, Mr. and Mrs. King both testified that Respondent and the other investigator, Hobbs, falsely identified themselves as federal agents who were allegedly involved in an undercover drug investigation. Respondent denies that he ever made such a representation to the Kings. Hobbs was not present to testify, but in a statement given to the Petitioner's investigator, John Matlack, in the regular course of his investigation of this incident Hobbs stated that he had been told by one of the Deputy Sheriffs that Respondent had made this statement. However, Hobbs was fired from TRACE, Inc., a couple of weeks after this incident, and therefore, has a motive for placing Respondent's license in jeopardy. Based upon the demeanor and testimony of Respondent and the Kings at hearing, as well as the motive which existed for the Kings to try to get back at Respondent for their loss of certain benefits resulting from his investigation, it is found that Respondent did not falsely identify himself as a federal agent at any time during the course of this investigation. Respondent was calm, orderly, logical, coherent and professional in his recollection of events, while Mr. King was aggressive and hostile towards Respondent. It was King who provoked the confrontation with Hobbs by restraining and preventing him from leaving. It was King who was angry with the investigators, including Respondent, and who allowed them to leave only after Deputy Sheriffs arrived. At hearing, it was King who was unclear in his recollection of specific details about the events of November 10, 1988, and he was clearly still angry with Respondent. The Petitioner also alleges that Respondent falsely identified himself as a federal agent to a neighbor of King, but that neighbor was not present to testify and his absence was not explained. Therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support this allegation concerning a statement allegedly made by Respondent to King's neighbor. It is against the policy of Respondent's company, TRACE, Inc., for any agent to represent himself to be a federal agent, and such misrepresentation is a basis for termination. Respondent is well aware of this policy, and credibly testified that he did not violate it in his investigation of King.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charge that Respondent violated Section 493.319(1)(i) Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 2-5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings cannot be made on the narrative statement filed by the Respondent on March 1, 1990, since it does not contain separately numbered proposed findings of fact and does not evidence that Respondent has provided a copy to counsel for the Petitioner. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Michael R. Heiland P. O. Box 152143 Tampa, FL 33614 Ken Rouse, Esguire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Captol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted.
Findings Of Fact l. Petitioner became a certified law enforcement officer and was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department in 1981. He worked for that agency through 1994, and his employment was terminated in 1996. During his employment with the Metro-Dade Police Department, he was trained as an investigator and was specifically trained in traffic accident investigation and reconstruction. He subsequently became an instructor for the Department and trained other police officers. During his employment with that agency, he received 12 commendations for good deeds and heroism. Initially, he received above-satisfactory evaluations. During his last seven years, he was rated as an outstanding employee. Although no longer employed by the Police Department, he continues to be used by the Metro-Dade Police Department, by the County Attorney's Office, and by the State Attorney's Office as a consultant on a regular basis and testifies on behalf of those agencies as an expert in traffic accident reconstruction. In 1994 he was charged with several felonies in Broward County. The jury found him not guilty of those charges, but he was convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior on June 10, 1995. The convictions were for five misdemeanors. Petitioner has engaged in no criminal activity either before or after his conviction and continues to maintain his innocence regarding the activity for which he was convicted. Petitioner was given six months' probation and has completed all conditions of that probation. None of the conditions of probation involved contact with people or restrictions on the employment in which he can engage. For the past three years, Petitioner has been employed in an administrative capacity by an investigative and security agency licensed by the Department. For a while he worked there under temporary licensing by the Department without incident. The agency which employs Petitioner performs a substantial amount of investigation and traffic accident reconstruction for insurance carriers. If licensed, Petitioner would perform that work in the field. Petitioner's ability to perform the duties of that employment is enhanced by his extensive educational background and experience. Petitioner even has a degree in photography, which further enhances his ability to perform surveillance, investigations, and traffic accident reconstruction. Petitioner's employers, who are both certified law enforcement officers, rely on Petitioner's "outstanding" investigative abilities and guidance. He is considered very knowledgeable in the requirements of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, the framework for investigative and security services administered by the Department. His skills are considered superior, and he is respectful to all with whom he comes in contact. He conducts himself with the utmost professionalism. Petitioner respects the law and asserts that he has never knowingly broken it. He further respects the rights of others as evidenced by his testimony, the testimony of other law enforcement officers, and the many awards, letters of praise from citizens, and commendations from his superiors admitted in evidence. There is no relationship between the misdemeanors for which Petitioner was convicted and the licenses for which he has made application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application and issuing to him a Class "C" Private Investigator license, a Class "D" Security Officer license, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Michael Cornely, Esquire Hartman and Cornely, P.A. 10680 Northwest 25 Street, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating the law regulating private investigators and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License bearing license number is C91-00006. Petitioner's files indicate that this license was issued January 10, 1991. Respondent testified that he has been licensed since December 1990. Despite records indicating that the Class "C" license was issued January 10, 1991, Petitioner, by letter dated May 24, 1991, informed Respondent that his Class "C" license "has been issued and is forthcoming." The May 24 letter adds: File review indicates that you are not currently employed. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, requires you to either own or be employed by a licensed Class "A" Private Investigative Agency. To work as a private investigator without meeting one of the foregoing conditions is a violation of law and subjects you to administrative action up to and including revocation of your Class "C" license. During 1991, Respondent was employed by A & W Investigations, which holds a Class "A" agency license. However, by July 7, 1991, he had completed his duties for A & W Investigations and was not employed by a Class "A" agency after that date. During the period between the termination of his employment with A & W Investigations and the meeting described below with Petitioner's investigator in October 1991, Respondent performed investigations related to workers' compensation for a company known as FEISCO. Serving as an independent contractor, Respondent also hired and paid James Coady for investigative work that he performed on Respondent's behalf for FEISCO. In August 1991, a new attorney in the area, Darren Young, received a letter from Respondent announcing his availability to serve as a consultant in criminal cases involving allegations of driving under the influence (DUI). Respondent had been employed for a couple of years by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and drew upon his experience in local law enforcement in providing DUI consultation services. Respondent and Mr. Young later met and began a business/social relationship. In October or November, Mr. Young hired Respondent as a DUI consultant in a pending case. Respondent served as an independent contractor, not an employee of Mr. Young. Although Mr. Young did not need Respondent to testify, he paid Respondent for his services. By letter dated September 23, 1991, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had learned that he was no longer employed by A & W Investigations as a Class "C" Private Investigator licensee. The letter contains the same warning as that quoted in the last two sentences of the above-cited May 24 letter. In early October 1991, an investigator of Petitioner met Respondent to discuss informal complaints made by two or three Naples private investigators that Respondent was conducting private investigations without a license. Respondent told the investigator that he was working for a tile company association doing investigations of its members and serving as an expert witness for attorneys in DUI cases. Petitioner's investigator explained that if Respondent intended to do any private investigations, he needed a Class "A" agency license with which to place his Class "C" private investigator's license. At the urging of Petitioner's investigator, Respondent agreed to begin the process of obtaining a Class "A" license, and, on October 3, 1991, Petitioner received Respondent's application for a Class "A" license. On December 26, 1991, Respondent obtained the general liability coverage required for the Class "A" license. By letter dated December 27, 1991, and received by Petitioner on January 6, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a money order in the amount of $300 in payment of the application fee, proof of liability insurance, and a copy of the fictitious name registration form. The letter states in part: I have contacted your office several times and have been informed that my fingerprints have not returned from FDLE. This is the only thing that I am waiting for before my license can be issued. The 90 days will be up in January and I was wondering if there is some provision that would allow me to start operations before they return. I would appreciate your advice on this matter. Prior to receiving the December 27 letter from Respondent, on January 3, 1992, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter "to notify you that your application for a Class "A" license had been approved." The letter states that Respondent needed to provide several items "so your license can be issued " The required items were a license fee of $300, certificate of insurance, and proof of filing a fictitious name. On January 8, 1992, Respondent mailed two letters. One was to Petitioner's investigator, stating that Respondent had "received the notice of approval for the issuance of my Agency license" and advising that he had "forwarded all of the required documentation to Tallahassee." The other letter of January 8, 1992, was to Petitioner and accompanies the certificate of liability insurance. The letter states that, on December 30, 1991, Respondent had sent Petitioner the application fee, copy of the fictitious name registration, and copy of the insurance binder. Petitioner received the certificate of liability insurance on January Noting that the certificate was not properly notarized, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter, on January 15, 1992, advising that the certificate of liability insurance was missing. By letter dated January 16, 1992, Respondent forwarded the certificate of liability insurance with proper notarization. Receiving the letter on January 22, 1992, Petitioner mailed a letter on January 24, 1992, advising Respondent that he had been issued on that date a Class "A" license, which was good from January 24, 1992, through January 24, 1994. Respondent engaged in at least two investigations during December 1991, at which time he clearly knew that he did not have a Class "A" license and needed one for the work in which he was engaged. In one case, he performed two days' surveillance on Kelly Trotta for Ray Trotta on December 6 and 7, 1991. By letter dated December 9, 1991, to Mr. Trotta, Respondent described the investigatory services that he provided and suggested future spot checks in order to avoid "running up the costs of the investigation." In another case, Mr. Young was retained on the day after Thanksgiving 1991 by Lawrence Harrison to provide legal services in connection with pending federal and state litigation. Mr. Young introduced Respondent to Mr. Harrison, who agreed to retain Respondent or allow Mr. Young to retain Respondent, in either case as an independent contractor. According to Respondent's invoice, Mr. Young hired him on December 16, 1991. The following day, Respondent checked corporate records as part of his investigative work and conveyed the information to Mr. Young. In the following days, Respondent researched Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, concerning the state litigation, which involved a legal action brought by Frank Coto against Mr. Harrison for unpaid private investigative services. Respondent drafted a complaint against Mr. Coto to be sent to Petitioner. Still in December, Respondent obtained character information on Mr. Coto and directly communicated it to the client. The complaint against Mr. Coto included allegations that he attempted to extort from Mr. Harrison the balance allegedly owed by Mr. Harrison to Mr. Coto for investigative services rendered. Mr. Harrison sent the complaint, under his signature, to Petitioner, which eventually elected not to prosecute. On January 9 and 10, 1992, according to Respondent's invoice of January 13, 1993, Respondent met with Mr. Harrison. By separate invoice, Respondent requested $1200 for the costs of a trip to Oklahoma in connection with investigative services related to the federal litigation. This sum was paid prior to January 24, 1992, which was when Respondent was to depart. On or about January 18, 1992, Mr. Young terminated his employment with Mr. Harrison. On January 23, 1992, Respondent contacted the FBI and informed them that Mr. Young had proposed a criminal conspiracy with Respondent to kill one or more persons involved with the Harrison matter. Subsequent investigations revealed no basis for criminal prosecution, nor professional discipline, against Mr. Young. The record is insufficient to determine if Respondent's charges were made in good faith. Instead of going himself, Respondent sent Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to perform investigative services for Respondent on behalf of Mr. Harrison. They departed either January 24 or 25, 1991, and performed the investigative services. There is no competent evidence as to whether Mr. Coady had a Class "C" license and, if so, when he obtained it. The evidence is unclear as to when Mr. Trotta obtained his Class "C: license, but he obtained or renewed a Class "C" license, possibly as early as January 23, 1994. Respondent allowed Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to place their Class "C" licenses, or the Class "C" licenses for which they were applying. The record establishes the date of sponsorship only as to Mr. Trotta. Respondent signed the form on January 5 and it was notarized on January 7, 1992. Respondent used his Class "A" license number, which he obtained by telephone from one of Petitioner's representatives prior to the official issuance of Respondent's Class "A" license. On March 4, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner advising that his firm was no longer sponsoring Mr. Trotta, Mr. Coady, or a third person, Heidi Trotta. Except for this letter, there is no evidence that Respondent ever employed Ms. Trotta, and Petitioner has failed to prove that anyone by that name was ever so employed by Respondent. The letter states that, as of January 30, 1992, Respondent's firm would no longer be responsible for their actions. The record does not indicate when Mr. Trotta and Mr. Coady were terminated. On August 11, 1992, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office and demanded his files for the Harrison and Trotta investigation, as well as a third investigation known as Sparkman/Hayes. Respondent offered to drive home and get the Trotta and Sparkman/Hayes files, but declined to provide the Harrison file until he received approval from Mr. Harrison's attorney, through whom he claimed to work. Petitioner's investigator told Respondent not to go home and get the two files, but to provide them to the investigator later. Respondent agreed to mail them, but did not. Petitioner's investigator never gave Respondent a deadline, nor did he ever again demand that Respondent give him the files. The failure to produce the Harrison file is not the subject of any allegations in the present case. During the course of the August 11 interview, Petitioner's investigator asked Respondent about Mr. Coto and the complaint that had been filed with Petitioner against him. Respondent initially lied, denying knowing anything about Mr. Coto or the complaint. But Petitioner's investigator showed Respondent a letter that Respondent had sent to Mr. Young, which effectively contradicted these denials. Respondent then admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he had drafted the complaint against Mr. Coto and that it had been intended to "muddy the waters." The intent of Respondent was to undermine Mr. Coto's civil action against Mr. Harrison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order ordering Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $3550. ENTERED on June 24, 1994, 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 June 24, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Attorney Ken Muszynski 850 Fifth Ave. South Naples, FL 33940
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, admissions made by Respondent, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0265883. In March of 1990, Ulrich Wingens, by and through his attorney, Charles Burns, entered into a written contract to purchase from Jupiter Bay Shoppes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "JBS") certain commercial property located in Palm Beach County. Respondent brokered the sale. The sale contract provided that JBS was responsible for payment of Respondent's broker's fee of $50,000.00 and that such compensation was to "[t]o be due and payable only if closing occur[red]." Respondent received a $20,000.00 earnest money deposit from Wingens in connection with the sale. The sale contract provided that the $20,000.00 was to be held in the Jim Towns Realty escrow account. The sale did not close. Litigation between Wingens and JBS ensued. During the pendency of the litigation, the parties instructed Respondent to continue to hold Wingens' $20,000.00 earnest money deposit in escrow until they advised him to do otherwise. Wingens and JBS settled their dispute before the case was scheduled to go to trial. On November 14, 1991, the judge assigned to the case, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Edward H. Fine, entered an order directing Respondent "to immediately transfer to Fleming, Haile & Shaw, P.A. Trust Account the escrow deposit in the amount of $20,000.00 and any accrued interest thereon." Respondent did not comply with the order. He had appropriated the $20,000.00 for his own personal use and benefit and was not holding it in escrow. This was contrary to the instructions he had received from Wingens and JBS. At no time had Wingens or JBS authorized Respondent to take such action. Wingens' attorney, Burns, brought the matter to the attention of the Department. The Department assigned one of its investigators, Terry Giles, to the case. As part of her investigation, Giles interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent admitted to Giles that he had closed his real estate office in October of 1991 and had not at any time prior to the interview notified the Department of the closure. At the time he closed his office, Respondent's real estate broker's license was still in active status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint and revoking his real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE IN CASE NO. 93-1315 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of facts" proposed by the Department in its post-hearing submittal: Accepted as true and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. First sentence: Accepted as true and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Accepted as true, but not incorporated because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 3-13. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. 14-15. Accepted as true, but not incorporated because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. Accepted as true, but not incorporated because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Legal Section, Suite N 308 Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Mr. James C. Towns 7101 Smoke Ranch Road #1007 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Frank Wallberg was going through a divorce and wanted a background investigation on his wife's attorney. On June 19, 1992, he went to the office of South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc. (Respondent Bureau) and specifically requested the services of William Polero (Respondent W. Polero) who he had met a few years prior to this. Respondent Bureau's secretary contacted Respondent W. Polero by telephone, and Wallberg explained to him what he wanted. Respondent W. Polero agreed to perform the background investigation on the attorney, requiring Wallberg to first pay a $1,500 retainer which he was to bring to Respondent W. Polero's home, approximately two blocks from Respondent Bureau's office. As agreed, Wallberg met Respondent W. Polero at his home and gave him a check for $1,500 as a retainer, made payable to Respondent Bureau. For the $1,500 Respondent W. Polero indicated that a complete written report on the attorney could be performed. Wallberg provided Respondent W. Polero with the attorney's complete name, address and telephone number. Respondent W. Polero made several telephone calls while Wallberg was at his home, attempting to obtain information on the attorney but all were unsuccessful. Approximately two days later, Wallberg contacted Respondent W. Polero inquiring about the progress of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero indicated that he was waiting for responses from inquiries and to contact him again that following Friday. Wallberg called back as directed. Respondent W. Polero indicated that after searching public records and court records and contacting The Florida Bar and other attorneys, the attorney had nothing irregular in his background. Feeling that he had not gotten his money worth, Wallberg questioned the cost of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero responded that there was nothing else to report, so there was nothing to report in writing and that the cost of the investigation was $1,500. By that time, the $1,500 check had been cashed. Being very disappointed, on or about July 11, 1992, Wallberg contacted another investigative agency, the Wackenhut Corporation, and obtained their services. He provided Wackenhut's investigator, John Rose, with the same information that he had provided Respondent W. Polero, i.e., the attorney's name, address and telephone number. On July 13, 1992, Rose began his investigation. By July 15, 1992, Rose had completed his investigation and prepared an 18 page written report with numerous exhibits attached. His report reflected the numerous sources he utilized, which included researching public records at the Dade County Courthouse, records maintained by the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, including vehicle and driver license information, criminal records maintained by Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department and public records of The Florida Bar. Through these sources, Rose was able to obtain a plethora of information on the attorney, including a history of federal and state tax liens having been filed against the attorney's property, criminal arrests and convictions, and disciplinary action against the attorney by The Florida Bar, with the specifics thereon. With his written report, Rose submitted an itemized invoice dated July 15, 1992, for his services, totaling $650.30. The invoice reflected that he had expended 10 hours on the investigation (generally outlining what was done), at a charge of $60 an hour, equalling $600 for the time, and that there were $50.30 in additional costs ($27 document copies, $2 for parking and $21.30 for mileage). By letter dated September 23, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondents that he had obtained the services of Wackenhut Corporation and requested that they provide Wackenhut with all the information in their file when requested by Wackenhut. By fax transmission on that same date, Jamie Polero (Respondent J. Polero), President of Respondent Bureau and the son of Respondent W. Polero, responded indicating, among other things, that there was no new or different information from what Respondent W. Polero had provided him and that since Wallberg had not contacted them for almost three months, he had assumed that Wallberg did not wish to continue the investigation. This was the first time that Wallberg had had any contact with Respondent J. Polero. By letter dated September 24, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondent J. Polero of his dissatisfaction with the investigation performed by Respondent Bureau and requested a $1,350 refund of the $1,500 within 24 hours. Wallberg never received any refund. Several communications between Wallberg and Respondent J. Polero failed to resolve the dispute. Finally, Wallberg contacted State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Petitioner) and filed a complaint. Respondent Bureau's investigative file for Wallberg consisted of nine pages, most of which were communications back and forth with Wallberg. Approximately eight hours were expended on Wallberg's case. Even though little investigative work was done, Respondent J. Polero admitted that most of it was performed by Respondent W. Polero, and not by himself. The investigative work performed by Respondents failed to meet industry standards in that the minimum investigation was not conducted, public records were not properly researched and false information was provided to Wallberg, their client. At all times material hereto, Respondent W. Polero was unlicensed. At all times material hereto, Respondent J. Polero was a licensed private investigator (Class "C" license) and a licensed recovery agent (repossessor) (Class "E" license). Also, at all times material hereto, Respondent Bureau was a licensed private investigative agency (Class "A" license) and a licensed recovery (repossession) agency (Class "R" license). No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent J. Polero. Both Respondent Bureau and Respondent W. Polero have prior disciplinary history. In 1989, Petitioner filed administrative complaints against both Respondents for, among other things, unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to a penalty of an administrative fine totalling $1,800, 2/ which was paid on or about August 30, 1989. 3/ Additionally, in 1989, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Bureau and in 1990 against Respondent W. Polero for unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to an administrative fine of $2,000 4/ which was paid by Respondent Bureau on or about May 25, 1990. 5/ As a related issue to the 1990 complaint, on April 27, 1990, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to Respondent W. Polero's unlicensed activity-- performing private investigative work without a license and managing a private investigative agency without a license--and served him on May 8, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order: Suspending South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc.'s Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "R" recovery (repossession) agency license for one year and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Suspending Jamie J. Polero's Class "C" private investigator license and Class "E" recovery agent (repossessor) license for one year 6/ and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 against William Polero. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of March 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of March 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for a real estate sales associate license on the ground that Petitioner was found guilty, in the State of Georgia, of the crime of theft by taking.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On June 12, 2006, Petitioner was working as a clerk at a UPS store in Cherokee County, Georgia, when he "gave in to temptation" (as he described it at hearing) and stole $500.00 in cash from an envelope given to him by a customer for shipment to the customer's former wife in Kansas. When the customer's former wife received an empty envelope, she notified the customer, who, in turn, called the police. On June 16, 2006, the police went to the UPS store to investigate the matter. When questioned by the police during their visit to the store, Respondent admitted to stealing the $500.00. He was thereupon placed under arrest and, thereafter, criminally charged. On October 16, 2007, in Cherokee County, Georgia, State Court, Petitioner was found guilty of the misdemeanor crime of theft by taking and sentenced to 12 months' probation. Among the conditions of his probation was that he provide "proof of repay[ment]" of the $500.00 he had stolen. Petitioner has not been arrested again, and he has returned to its rightful owner the $500.00 he had stolen and has otherwise completed his probation. The record evidence, however, does not reveal how long ago Petitioner's probation was completed; nor, more importantly, does it shed any light on what Respondent has done with his life (other than completing his probation and not getting arrested) since the theft which led to his being placed on probation, or what his present reputation is for honesty, trustworthiness, and fair dealing. The record evidence, therefore, is insufficient to establish that there is reason to believe that, notwithstanding his commission of the aforementioned theft, it is not likely he would act dishonestly or in any other manner endangering the public were he to be granted the real estate sales associate license he seeks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2011, 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 5th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin Vaughn, Jr. 931 Village Boulevard, Apartment 905-203 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level 01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair, Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Layne Smith, General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida. In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license. Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property. Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report. Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates' trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably. Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations. There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished. Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it. There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled. It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit. Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative. Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself. Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra. While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible. It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile. Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver $500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people. From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 & 6. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Accepted. 12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted. First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted. Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact. First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint by subcontracting with individuals named therein to provide private investigative services at a time when they were not licensed as a Class "A" investigative agency. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, by allowing an improperly licensed person, John Polk, to direct the activities of licensees, or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Morse Security Group, Incorporated. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VI in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to report to the Department the termination of persons listed in that count. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by directing the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager, subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his Class "C" private investigator's license and Class "M" private investigative/security agency manager's license. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by misrepresenting his agency by advertising in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 1993, that his agency is "Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agency", when it is not. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to certify the completion or termination of the internship of William J. Smithberger when he had the duty as a sponsor to do so.
Findings Of Fact Morse Security Group holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number AOO-00919, effective June 30, 1993, which was originally issued in 1976, and is currently active. Harvey Morse, the principal of Respondent, holds a Class "C" private investigator license, number COO-008861, effective November 24, 1992, which was originally issued in 1975, and was placed on inactive status by the Department on January 21, 1993. Harvey Morse also was issued a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI89-00348, effective January 8, 1993, a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, No. GOO-11067, effective December 6, 1991, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993, and a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager license No. M85-00112, effective August 7, 1992, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993. Craig Hull became employed with Respondent in February of 1993, as a part-time investigator. Hull worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent, and held himself out to the public as an employee. When Hull entered into his contractual employment agreement with Respondent, he was given a vacation/sick day policy document noting his status as a full-time employee of Respondent. Hull executed an Employment Agreement which referred to him as the "employee" and also referred to him as an "independent subcontractor" for the purpose of withholdings. At the time of Hull's employment with Respondent, he held a Class "C" private investigator license. In all aspects of Hull's employment with Respondent, he conducted himself, and was treated as an employee. Hull did business for Respondent under the Respondent's corporate name; held himself out to the public as being Respondent's employee; signed contracts on behalf of Respondent; received letters and correspondence as an employee; was directed when and were to show up for work; how to answer to the telephone; when to answer the telephone; and in all other respects was under the direct control and supervision of Respondent. During the course of employment with Morse Security Group, Hull possessed no occupational license, business cards, stationery, telephone listing, brochures or printed material that identified him as having any relationship with Respondent other than employee and filed no fictitious name with the Department of State. In dealing with clients and the general public, Hull held himself out as an employee of Respondent and his business cards indicated that he was an employee of Respondent. Of the five cases that Hull handled on behalf of Respondent, he at no time attempted to limit the Respondent's liability to any of those clients by asserting that he was an independent contractor, or had any other relationship with Respondent other than employee. Respondent never identified Hull to others an anything other than an employee. At no time did Respondent attempt to limit its general liability to the public as to Hull's employment by the use of the term subcontractor. Respondent never attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of the term subcontractor as to Hull's employment. Respondent's liability insurance in effect from 1991 through 1994, specifically covered Hull as an employee of Respondent. John K. Polk was employed by Respondent from February 5, 1992 through March 27, 1993. At the inception of Polk's employment, he entered into an employment contract with Respondent. The agreement for employment was entitled "Employment Agreement", and consisted of twelve paragraphs. Throughout the employment agreement Polk is referred to as employee and Respondent is referred to as employer except in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 informed Polk that as employee he would be regarded as a subcontractor or independent contractor for the purposes of taxes, workers' compensation, licenses, permits, and insurance. During the course of Polk's employment his relationship with Respondent was governed by the employment agreement. In addition to the employment agreement signed by Polk, he received a separate document entitled, "Employee Vacation/Sick Leave Policy". The vacation/sick leave document further identified and regulated Polk as an employee. During the course of Polk's employment with Respondent Polk did not maintain a separate general liability policy. At no time during the course of Polk's employment with Respondent did Respondent attempt to limit its liability to its clients by treating Polk as anything other than as an employee. Polk never attempted to use the fact that the term "subcontractor" had been used in paragraph 10 of the employment agreement in order to limit Respondent's liabilities to clients. Polk's employee fidelity bond questionnaire for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Insurance was submitted by Respondent listing Polk as an employee, and Polk was covered under the policy for any acts of negligence of omissions. During the period of Polk's employment with Respondent he held no separate occupational license. Polk's business cards and stationery was provided by Respondent, and identified Polk as an employee of Respondent. The business telephone employed by Polk during his employment with Respondent was identified as Respondent. Polk worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. At all times Polk held himself out as an employee to Respondent's clients. During the course of his employment with Respondent, Polk was covered under Respondent's general liability policy for any acts of negligence or omission committed by Polk. Randy Morgan was employed with Respondent as an investigator from January 1, 1991, to approximately December, 1992. Morgan did not have a written contract for employment with the Respondent. Morgan was compensated by the case on an hourly basis by Respondent. Morgan was responsible for withholding his own Social Security and federal income taxes. Morgan considered himself as an employee of Respondent, and was under the supervision and control of Respondent. At all times during the course of his employment Morgan held himself out as an employee of Respondent, not as a subcontractor. Robert O. Sutley was employed by Respondent from November of 1992, until approximately March, 1993. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley held "DD", "B", and "G" licenses from the Department. Sutley entered into an employment agreement with Respondent which consisted of twelve paragraphs entitled "Employment Agreement". Within the employment agreement, the term "independent contractor" was a term used in relation to the workers' compensation and the withholding of taxes. Respondent did not attempt to limit its liability to the general public in regard to Sutley. Throughout the course of his employment with Respondent, Sutley held himself out as an investigator employee of Respondent. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley was under the supervision and control of Respondent. Respondent was contacted on a cold call by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for the purposes of advertising. After negotiations, Respondent caused to be issued an advertisement in the Martindale-Hubbell directory. Respondent initially instructed Martindale-Hubbell to advertise that Respondent was "one of the oldest and largest investigative agencies in Florida". The basis for the requested advertisement that Respondent was one of the oldest and largest was Respondent's purchase of a statewide detective agency, which had been in business in Florida since the 1950's, and that Respondent has an affiliate office in Europe and other parts of the United States. Pinkerton's of Florida has been licensed in Florida as an investigative agency since 1968. Pinkerton's has employed over 25 investigator employees on an annual basis over the last five years. Prior to its publication in Martindale-Hubbell, Respondent was not aware of the contents of the advertisement. The ad, as published, stated that the Respondent was the oldest and largest investigative agency in Florida. Respondent became aware of the contents of the advertisement upon receipt of the complaint filed against him by the State. Respondent then sent a letter to Martindale-Hubbell, inquiring why the advertisement read "Florida's oldest and largest private investigative agency", as opposed to "one of Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agencies" as previously instructed by Respondent. Martindale-Hubbell acknowledged that the final draft of the advertisement had been done without Respondent's approval and that an error had been made by Martindale-Hubbell in the advertisement, as it appeared in their publication. Respondent instructed Martindale-Hubbell to cease further advertisement. Respondent reported on his letterhead stationery to the Department the termination of the following persons: Colard, Crews, Fitzgerald, Martin, Morgan, Polk, and Stebbins within the statutory time limit. When Respondent was advised by Mr. Matlack that the computer printout from the Department showed that the above named people were still on a list indicating that they were associated with Respondent, Respondent sent another letter dated April 27, 1993 to the Department advising them of the termination of those listed individuals. As of October 15, 1993, the above named persons were still listed as in Respondent's employ. During the period from January 1, 1993 to April 1993, Harvey E. Morse voluntarily deactivated Class "C" Private Investigator's License and Private Investigative Security Agency Manager's License. Morse voluntarily deactivated licenses upon his graduation from the police academy and his association with the Florida Highway Patrol as a full time auxiliary trooper. Upon voluntary deactivation of Morse's licenses, Morse notified each of the company's employees that Morse would not be involved in any more investigations, and that the employees were to receive their direction from either Dwayne Rutledge or Maria Morse. Morse continued to engage in non-regulated functions such as marketing, sales, computer functions, bookkeeping, and payroll and teaching, training and instruction. During the periods of voluntary deactivation of his license, Morse would run a driver's license record on the computer, receive a printout, and hand it to an employee. Morse refrained, however, from being involved in an investigation based upon that printout. Morse has refrained from involvement in any regulated activities from the time that he voluntarily deactivated his license. Once Morse voluntarily deactivated his license, the primary person responsible for investigations and management of employees was Dwayne Rutledge. During the period from September 1992 to January 1993, Harvey E. Morse supervised and trained John Polk. Morse was always available by way of pager or cellular phone, and in constant contact with John Polk during that time period. Further, Respondent installed a two-way radio system so that Morse could talk with and supervise John Polk on a constant basis. Morse was never more than 60 miles from John Polk during his internship from September 1992 till January 1993, and Morse was in daily contact with John Polk in regard to pending investigations, new matters, old matters, and the general business of the Respondent's office. On several occasions during the above stated time period, Polk would communicate with Morse while he was on patrol in a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, and ask questions of Morse concerning how investigative matters should be handled. Polk was afforded certain latitude by Morse to make administrative decisions on a day-to-day basis as his training progressed, and Morse placed more confidence in Polk's abilities in certain areas. However, Morse still oversaw those decisions. At all times, Polk's supervision of Respondent's employees was under the direct supervision and control of Morse or other licensed managers in Respondent's employ. The purpose of the Respondent's purchase of a two way radio system was twofold: One, to communicate with other investigators during the course of an investigation; and the other was to afford constant communication among Morse, the office managers, Dwayne Rutledge and Maria Morse, and the investigators, in case of a question would arise in the performance of their duties. Rutledge, as well as Maria Morse, became employed as office manager(s) shortly after 1990, and both he and Mrs. Morse were continuously available to the employees and oversaw, in conjunction with the Morse, the performance of their regulated duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is WHEREFORE, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated those sections as alleged in Counts I through IX of the Administrative Complaint, it is hereby recommended that said Counts be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3890 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count II, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22; Count IV, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Count V, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count VIII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VI, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Count III, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. Rejected as argument or conclusory: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 2, 21; Count IV, paragraphs 9; Count V, paragraph 2(in part); Count VII, paragraphs 4; Count III paragraphs 4, 9. Rejected as redundant or surplusage, or irrelevant and immaterial: Count II, unnumbered paragraphs 13, 18, 19; Count IV, paragraph 5; Count VI, paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire William J. Sheaffer, PA. 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
