The Issue This cause concerns the issue of whether the Petitioner should impose disciplinary sanctions against the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. Specifically the issues concern whether the Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring maintenance of good moral character by a certified law enforcement officer and, if he has not, what discipline is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensing (certification) of law enforcement officers and with enforcing the practice standards embodied in Chapter 943 Florida Statutes and pendent rules. It regulates the practice of law enforcement officers through the enactment of regulatory standards and enforcement of such standards by rulemaking, as well as by implementation of policy decisions. The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer on June 17, 1982. He was issued certificate number 02- 331-00. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Gainesville Police Department at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Early on the morning of January 2, 1988, the Respondent returned from a trip to Atlanta, Georgia, of several days duration. He returned directly to his residence at the Gardenia Apartments, an apartment complex in Gainesville, Florida. On that morning, Sergeant Louis Aceveda of the Gainesville Police Department responded to a call to investigate a complaint of loitering and a possible illicit drug transaction at the apartment complex. Sergeant Aceveda is a narcotics investigator for that police department. Shortly after his arrival at the Gardenia Apartments complex, Sergeant Aceveda coincidentally encountered the Respondent, a fellow police officer, when the Respondent was driving into the parking lot of the complex. They engaged in a brief conversation about Sergeant Aceveda's purpose at the site and the Sergeant asked the Respondent if he could use the restroom in the Respondent's apartment. The Respondent readily agreed. Upon entering the Respondent's apartment the Sergeant smelled an aroma of burnt marijuana. No one else was present in the apartment at that time other than Sergeant Aceveda and the Respondent. The Sergeant made his way to the only restroom in the apartment and closed the door. Once he was in the restroom he observed a partially-burned marijuana cigarette in an ashtray lying in plain view on the top of the toilet tank. He confiscated that cigarette remnant, placed it in his pocket, and left the Respondent's apartment without revealing his discovery to the Respondent. After leaving the apartment he reported the incident to his supervisors and fellow investigators. Later that same day, Detective Drayton McDaniel of the Gainesville Police Department Narcotics and Organized Crime Section executed a probable cause affidavit in support of a search warrant application in order to attempt a search of the Respondent's apartment. The affidavit was based on Sergeant Aceveda's observations made earlier that day. It was presented to a county judge who found probable cause and issued a search warrant for the Respondent's apartment. At approximately 7:50 p.m. on January 2, 1988 Detective McDaniel and several other officers met the Respondent outside his apartment. Detective McDaniel knew the Respondent as a fellow police officer. He read the search warrant to the Respondent and the Respondent exhibited no specific reaction, asked no questions and made no comments concerning the search. Detective McDaniel and the officers assisting him then entered the apartment and began the search. Detective McDaniel collected, packaged and placed identification on certain seized items found during the search. Sergeant A. W. Smith, the Respondent's former supervisor, assisted with the search. He found a metal can top which contained approximately one tenth of a gram of marijuana (cannabis) as well as "rolling papers" commonly used to roll marijuana cigarettes. This material was in plain view on top of the Respondent's dresser in his bedroom. The Respondent's police badge and identification had been placed almost in contact with the metal can top on top of the dresser also. Investigator Richard Brooks of the Alachua County Sheriff's office also assisted in the search. He found an ashtray in the Respondent's bedroom which contained three marijuana cigarettes. Inside a drawer in the dresser Detective McDaniel found a black ceramic smoking pipe containing the residue of cannabis in the bowl. Sergeant Smith found a closed, purple handbag in the same bedroom on top of a chest at the foot of the bed. Inside the handbag was the Respondent's service revolver, issued to him by the Gainesville Police Department, as well as a small bag containing 1.5 grams of cannabis. Detective McDaniel found two cannabis cigarettes in the Respondent's automobile after he had obtained the Respondent's consent to search it. Sergeant Smith found four partially smoked marijuana cigarettes weighing approximately a tenth of a gram which were in a metal tray on the top of a dresser in the Respondent's bedroom. These were in plain view. Sergeant Smith also found a round tray under the dresser in the Respondent's bedroom which contained .1 gram of cannabis. During this lengthy search the Respondent was present. Despite this he made no statements nor asked any questions of his fellow police officers, who were known to him, while they were searching his home and his vehicle. However when Detective McDaniel discovered a small bag of suspected cocaine in his vehicle the Respondent indicated to him that his fingerprints would not be found on the bag. Other than this he was heard to make no comment during the entire search. After the search was concluded Detective McDaniel told him that he would be arrested. Again he made no statement. On January 4, 1988 Investigator Raymond Griffin of the Gainesville Police Department Internal Affairs Unit conducted an administrative interview of the Respondent. The Respondent was asked to submit to a urinalysis to determine if he had used narcotics but refused to do so. On January 5, 1988 the Respondent resigned his position with the Gainesville Police Department after having worked in that capacity for five and one- half years. On May 31, 1988 he entered a plea of nolo contendere on the charge of possession of cannabis before the County Court, In And For Alachua County. The Respondent maintained in his testimony that he had been to Atlanta on a vacation trip for several days, during which time his brother and some of his friends had used his apartment, apparently as a place for temporary residence and to "party". The Respondent indicated that he felt that his brother or other persons occupying the premises temporarily, during his brother's possession of them, had left the marijuana cigarettes and remnants of them on the premises. The Respondent maintained that he was gathering these items to begin investigating their origin and who might be responsible for them and that this was why he had the marijuana in the purple handbag and on top of his dresser. He had no explanation for the marijuana cigarette remnants from the bathroom or under the dresser or from his vehicle, however. The same is true of the discovery of the cocaine in his vehicle. The Respondent maintained that he was unable to locate his brother to secure his testimony for this proceeding because at some point after the Respondent's arrest and resignation from the Gainesville Police Department, and before this hearing, the Respondent's brother was convicted of a felony, and sentenced and incarcerated in the state prison system. The Respondent professed not to know his whereabouts at the time of the hearing. The Respondent's version of events concerning his gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, for purposes of conducting an investigation concerning its origin is not accepted. It is not credible to believe that a police officer of five and one-half years experience would gather marijuana and place it on his dresser in a convenient location, in the belief that persons not normally using his apartment had left those items there, without conducting a thorough search of his apartment so that he would have discovered the other marijuana remnants and also gathered them into a central location for preservation as evidence. If he had really intended gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, he would certainly have discovered that which was found in the bathroom, under the dresser and the marijuana smoking pipe from the dresser drawer. The fact that these other items were discovered not gathered and preserved in one location for transmittal to the police department, and the origination of an investigation, belies the Respondent's story in this regard. In fact, it appears that the Respondent was simply in possession of an illegal substance, marijuana, in his apartment and the search was conducted and the discoveries made before he could dispose of it. His story is further belied by the fact that cocaine and marijuana cigarettes were found in his automobile, which does not fit his description of events concerning his gathering of evidence to investigate who might have left the marijuana lying around the apartment. He was in possession of his automobile during the Atlanta trip. Further, his possession of the marijuana in question in the apartment was shown by the fact that he was present at home in the residence when the search warrant was served and the marijuana was lying around, or most of it was, in plain view. It is, thus, difficult to believe that he was unaware of its presence and did not have dominion and control over it. The fact that the marijuana in his apartment was under his dominion and control and, therefore, his possession, is corroborated by the fact that marijuana was found, along with cocaine, in his vehicle, which points to the fact that all the illegal substances found were possessed by the Respondent with his knowledge. There was certainly no evidence that Respondent's brother or other unknown persons had used his vehicle and left marijuana and cocaine therein unbeknownst to the Respondent. In summary, the marijuana being in plain view in the apartment at several different locations indicates that it was in the Respondent's actual possession, that he knew of it, and that he simply was surprised before he could discard it or otherwise dispose of it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revoking the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1-28. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the subject matter, and not entirely supported by the clear and convincing evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted. 5-13. Accepted. 14. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive of the issues presented for adjudication. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Horace N. Moore, Sr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2146 Gainesville, FL 32602 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether the Respondent is guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated January 26, 1987, and, if so, whether her certificate should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Patricia M. Rosenfeld, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 11, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number 02-29462. At all times material to this cause, Respondent was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department. During the fall of 1982, Carolyn Washington was employed as a dispatcher by the Florida City Police Department. Ms. Washington participated in the theft of some 1450 lbs. of marijuana from the evidence cellar at the Florida City Police Department. After the marijuana had been sold, Washington received a total of $20,000 (cash) as her portion of the proceeds. Alice Clanton Butler was a dispatcher for the Homestead Police Department during the fall of 1982. At all times relevant to the issue in this case, Butler shared an apartment with Respondent. References to "Wendy" or "Alex" in the transcript refer to this person. Washington confided the details of the marijuana theft to her friend, Butler. Washington was allowed to store some of the proceeds from the sale at Butler's and Respondent's apartment. During September, 1982, Washington agreed to loan Butler money. Washington gave Butler $2000 to keep and spend, and requested that Butler store an additional $8000. This money, all proceeds from the sale of the marijuana which had been stolen from the Florida City Police Department, was placed in a hope chest at Butler's apartment. Washington entrusted Butler with the money because she considered her to be a good friend. Some time later, Respondent became aware that Butler was storing money from Washington at the apartment. Washington was asked to come over, at which time she and Butler engaged in a conversation, in Respondent's presence, as to the storage of the money and its origin. On one visit to the apartment, Washington, Butler and Respondent sat at a table counting and arranging the money in stacks of $100, $50, and $20 denominations. During this incident Respondent asked Washington for a loan. This loan was to be used as part of a payment on a new car. Washington agreed to let Respondent use some of the money for the new car purchase. Respondent knew, however, prior to borrowing the money, the manner in which Washington had come by the funds. Respondent used the money borrowed from Washington to purchase a new car. This purchase was made during the month of October, 1982. Washington and Butler discussed the theft of the marijuana, as well as the identity of others who had participated in the theft, in Respondent's presence. Respondent acted as though she did not wish to become involved. The fact that one of the conspirators had purchased a Chili Shop with some of the theft proceeds was also discussed in Respondent's presence. Washington and Butler fabricated a story to explain the new found financial success Washington was having. They told Respondent, Patricia Rosenfeld (Respondent's mother), and Virginia O'Regan (a friend) that Washington had received an inheritance from her grandmother's estate. Thus, Rosenfeld and O'Regan believed the estate money to be the source for the car loan. Respondent, however, had been present during conversations wherein the true source of the funds had been disclosed. Additionally, Respondent knew the money (cash) was being stored in her apartment. Respondent did not file a police report on Butler or others involved in the theft. A memorandum filed regarding Washington alleged Washington may have been involved with cocaine. At no time did Respondent expose Washington as part of the marijuana theft group. On March 23, 1983, John Johnson, an investigator for the Dade County State Attorney's Office, subpoenaed Washington for questioning. At this session Washington admitted her involvement in the marijuana theft and named others, including Butler and Respondent. Washington explained how the thefts had been arranged and that she had stored the cash proceeds with Butler. Washington, Butler, and Virginia Ann Woodlief, a dispatcher at the Florida City Police Department who was a friend of Butler's and Respondent's, agreed to assist with the investigation regarding the Florida City marijuana theft. On several occasions they wore body bugs and attempted to engage Respondent in conversation. On one such occasion, Respondent told Woodlief that the cash could not be traced. Woodlief understood Respondent to be referring to the cash proceeds from the marijuana sale. Washington was not prosecuted for her role in the marijuana theft. Respondent was prosecuted and acquitted. On September 17, 1983, Respondent wrote a letter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement wherein she admitted "a bad judgement (sic) call."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's certificate number 02- 29462. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0189 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 4. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, as to material findings see paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted to the extent facts are addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. The remaining portions are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 20 is accepted in material part and addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 21 accepted but unnecessary. By her admission, Respondent used $2000 borrowed from Washington toward her purchase of the car. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 12. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 2. Accepted in part Finding of Fact paragraph 3. Rejected as to suggestion, Respondent did not know. See subsequent findings of fact paragraph 5. Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Rejected as to conclusion Respondent was not aware of the conversations between Butler and Washington which took place in Respondent's presence. Accepted only as addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary since true origin of funds was known to Respondent. 11 Accepted as it states Respondent accepted loan-see findings of fact paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected otherwise as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted but is unnecessary. See Findings of Fact paragraph 10 as to material findings. Accepted in material part in Findings of Fact paragraphs 11, 12; otherwise rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Rejected as argumentative. Rejected as argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael R. Fishman, Esquire 19700 Caribbean Boulevard Suite 240 Miami, Florida 33189 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein including the post-hearing depositions filed herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent, Gregory Sweeting, was employed as a buyer in the Bureau of Business Management, Dade County School Board. On August 6, 1981 at approximately 2:16 a.m., Respondent was arrested on the corner of 79th Street and 5th Avenue in Miami by Officer Alex Alvarez, a detective with the Metro Dade County Police Department. Officer Alvarez arrested Respondent for driving a vehicle without a valid driver's license. Respondent was later charged with driving a motor vehicle while his driver's license was suspended. Immediately upon Officer Alvarez's advice to Respondent that he was being placed under arrest, he (Respondent) was further notified that his vehicle would be inventoried at the site and thereafter it would be impounded. An inventory of Respondent's car revealed the following items: Approximately 500 empty gelatin capsules; A 22-caliber revolver; A bag containing approximately 20 grams of suspected cocaine; A bottle of mannitol (a substance commonly used to cut cocaine) A mirror, vial, straws, sharp knives, razor blades, scales and strainers. Officer Alvarez retained the suspected cocaine substance in his possession, sealed it and transferred it to the Dade County Crime Laboratory where the suspected cocaine substance was analyzed by Chemist Harry Coleman, a chemist employed by the Dade County Crime Laboratory in excess of twelve years. Chemist Coleman analyzed the suspected cocaine and his analysis revealed the presence of cocaine in the substance analyzed. The items were transferred to Chemist Coleman in a sealed envelope and the transfer was made in a normal course and received in a sealed envelope by a police courier from the Dade County Police Department. By letter dated August 12, 1981, Superintendent Leonard Britton of the Dade County School Board advised Respondent, Gregory Sweeting, that he was suspended from his employment with the School Board and that he would be filing an intent to recommend that he be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County. On August 19, 1981, the School Board approved the suspension of employee Gregory Sweeting and dismissal proceedings were instituted by the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Gregory Sweeting from his employment as a buyer with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on July 9, 1973, up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, was a registered real estate salesman under certificate no. 54569, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In the January 22, 1973 application which the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, filed for registration as a real estate salesman, he answered the question no. 9 found therein. Question no. 9 says: "Have you ever been arrested for or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgement has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted. if yes, state details in full. The answer which was given by Hal K. Johnson was, "DWI, December, 1972 & June, 1976, Failure to yield, Dec. 1972". In addition to the offenses indicated in his answer to question no. 9, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, had been arrested for a number of other offenses. On September 20, 1955, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On August 20, 1957, the Respondent had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. On January 28, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. On February 27, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On March 6, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On July 1, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On August 12, 1961, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On January 17, 1962, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On November 10, 1962, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On September 18, 1963, the Respondent was arrested for having no drivers license. On December 13, 1963, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On March 23, 1967, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk and profane language. On July 30, 1967, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On September 4, 1967, the Respondent was charged with reckless operation of motor vehicle, driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages. On June 5, 1968, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On July 19, 1968, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On April 18, 1972, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk.
Recommendation At the hearing, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, did not challenge the facts as presented in the administrative complaint. His intention in appearing at the hearing was to offer mitigation. In the way of mitigation, Mr. Johnson said that he was only given one line to answer the question no. 9, which did not provide him enough room, notwithstanding the fact that he had read the instructions which said that additional information should be provided on a separate sheet. Moreover, Mr. Johnson said that the language of question no. 9, which says "commission of an offense . . .", only calls for just one offense to be listed and he in fact listed three. He also said that he did not put some of the drunk arrests down because now they don't even require you to be arrested, they just take you someplace." In addition, he indicated that he did not know where to get the records of these arrests that had been placed against him. He said he thought that the records of these matters were found in Tallahassee, Florida. The three indications of arrests were also felt, in the mind of the Respondent, to be a sufficient indication of the 20 arrests that had been made. Finally, the Respondent said that he wants to make it clear that he didn't intend to try to make misstatements, although he agrees that he failed to elaborate, which to him was an error of omission not intent. Having considered the explanation offered by Mr. Hal K. Johnson, the Respondent, in view of the facts, it is recommended that his certificate no. 54569, as a registered real estate salesman be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Hal K. Johnson c/o Fowler Realty 8917 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Respondent violated provisions of the Department of Law Enforcement Act of 1974, and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has engaged in acts which demonstrate that he has not maintained good moral character, and that his certification as a law enforcement officer should be permanently revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds a certificate issued by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. The certificate was issued in February, 1976. The Respondent was then employed with the City of Bunnell Police Department. The Respondent was a police officer with that department for a period of time, and was ultimately named Chief of Police. The Respondent is not presently employed with the Police Department in Bunnell, and is apparently not employed in the law enforcement field. During the time that he was employed as Chief of Police with the City of Bunnell Police Department, the Respondent engaged in immoral and illegal activities which included the use and distribution of marijuana, utilizing the services of prostitutes, and possession of moonshine whiskey. On at least two occasions, the Respondent delivered marijuana, apparently without charge, to a resident of Bunnell. On one of these occasions the Respondent was dressed in his police uniform, and made the delivery from his police car. Respondent smoked marijuana cigarettes with several residents of Bunnell. Respondent visited a house of prostitution in Daytona Beach with these same persons. The Respondent was observed haggling over price, and entering a private room with one of the residents of the house. On several occasions the Respondent openly displayed to his associates, a jar of what appeared to be moonshine whiskey, and what the Respondent stated was moonshine whiskey. The Respondent told an employee of the Flagler County Sheriff's Department, and an employee of the City's Corrections Department, that he had made the moonshine. In late 1978 or early 1979, approximately two pounds of marijuana was seized by officers of the Flagler County Sheriff's office. Four men who were apparently illegal aliens were arrested, and the marijuana and other matter were seized and placed in the vault at the Flagler County jail. The next day, the arresting officer returned to the vault in order to properly mark the marijuana as evidence. The Respondent had removed the marijuana from the vault. Respondent stated that he had disposed of it in a creek. Even if the Respondent did dispose of the marijuana in that manner, which is not a believable explanation, such action would be an improper manner of dealing with evidence that had been seized by law enforcement officers of another agency. While he was a police officer and Chief of Police with the City of Bunnell Police Department, the Respondent on several occasions disposed of stray dogs by shooting them and leaving their bodies in a creek. The Respondent apparently considered it easier and cheaper to dispose of stray dogs in this manner rather than taking them to an animal shelter. It is clearly an improper means of disposing of stray animals. While the Respondent was Chief of Police with the City of Bunnell, an officer with the Police Department advised the Respondent that he had observed gambling occurring at a tavern. The Respondent advised the officer to take no action regarding the matter as it was not a big deal and no one was complaining. The Respondent's actions, which include use of marijuana, prostitutes, and moonshine whiskey, illegally disposing of evidence and illegally shooting stray dogs, clearly demonstrate that the Respondent failed to maintain good moral character. His actions would inevitably have the effect of creating bad morale at the Police Department in the City of Bunnell and his actions did have that effect. It was alleged in the Complaint that the Respondent had marijuana that he kept in his closet at his home. This allegation was supported at the hearing by the testimony of a former baby sitter of the Respondent. The testimony has not been credited, and the allegation therefore has not been proven. It was six years ago that the baby sitter witness observed what she testified was marijuana, and she was at that time eleven years old. What she stated was marijuana was not identified by any other person. It was alleged in the Administrative Complaint that the Respondent observed an illegal drug transaction in process and failed to take any action with respect to it. These allegations are not supported by any credible evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. On August 7, 1982, Respondent was arrested on his property in Manatee County at a marijuana patch growing thereon. He was taken into custody, handcuffed, and placed in a Sheriff's Department vehicle for transportation into Bradenton for booking. Upon arrival at the sally port at the booking office and jail, Respondent was removed from the car. While the sequence of events that occurred was not explicated at the hearing, in Respondent's words "things got out of hand." Respondent testified the Deputy Sheriff tried to "break my arms while removing him from the vehicle, then "overreacted" and drew his pistol. As he emerged from the car, one of Respondent's handcuffs came off, Respondent seized the deputy's gun and ran away. Respondent surrendered himself to authorities the following day and the gun was returned by his attorney a few days later. Respondent was charged and tried on three counts involving manufacture, use, or intent to use, and possession of marijuana; grand theft of the pistol taken from the Deputy Sheriff; aggravated assault; and escape from confinement. He pleaded nolo contendere to all counts except aggravated assault, to which he pleaded and was found not guilty. Adjudication of guilt was withheld on the three marijuana counts (Counts I, II, and III) and on the grand theft count (Count IV), and Respondent was sentenced to ten days' confinement on work release program on Counts I, II, III, and IV, and was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for three years on Count IV. He was found guilty of escape from confinement and was sentenced to 11-1/2 months in the County Jail work release program and placed on three years probation to run concurrently with the probation in Count IV. Respondent has lived in Manatee County all his life and his parents are long-time residents. He has been licensed as a real estate broker for seven years and was a salesman before becoming a broker. The psychotherapist to whom Respondent was referred for counseling after his arrest testified that he met with Respondent for counseling for more than 100 hours and that he administered standards tests to Respondent to determine emotional stability and personality traits. This witness opined that Respondent is of moral standards without psychiatric problems or personality disorders, and that he is a church-going man. This witness did not consider the stealing of the deputy's firearm to be an immoral act, but considered the growing of marijuana to be a moral offense.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 10, 1990 and issued certificate number 05-89-502- 09. On May 30, 1990, Apalachee Correctional Institution Assistant Superintendent for Operations Joe W. "Bill" Davis, the chief corrections officer, received information to the effect that the Respondent possessed marijuana in his bachelor officer's quarters (BOQ) on the grounds of the Apalachee Correctional Institution, Jackson County, Florida at that time. Mr. Davis thereupon contacted Jackson County Sheriff's office investigator, Lieutenant Robby Wester, to assist him in an investigation of this report. Both Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester made contact with the Respondent at the BOQ in the afternoon of May 30, 1990. The investigating officers received the Respondent's permission to conduct a search of his quarters on that day. During the search of his quarters Mr. Davis discovered and seized a small amount of marijuana and two photographs of marijuana from a piece of furniture which was located next to the Respondent's bed. Lt. Wester spoke with the Respondent shortly after the seizure of the marijuana from the Respondent's room. The Respondent told Lt. Wester that the Respondent had been "tipped off" about the search two hours prior to the arrival of Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester and that he had destroyed five bags of marijuana which he had possessed in the Respondent's residence. The Respondent also admitted he had previously smoked marijuana but was drug free on this occasion, May 30, 1990. The marijuana (cannabis) which was seized by Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester from the Respondent's room was submitted to the FDLE crime laboratory, was analyzed and proved to be cannabis. As a result of the discovery of the marijuana in the Respondent's room the Respondent was charged by Lt. Wester with possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Lt. Wester did not arrest the Respondent on May 30, 1990 but told him to appear in court the following day. The Respondent, pursuant to notice to appear, appeared before the county court in Jackson County, Florida and in mid-July agreed to conditions of an order of pretrial intervention. The Respondent however failed to fulfill the conditions of the pretrial intervention order and was returned to the jurisdiction of the county court for the marijuana possession charge originally filed. The Respondent thereupon entered a plea of guilty to the marijuana possession charge on February 4, 1991. Judge Hatcher of the county court adjudged the Respondent guilty of the marijuana possession charge at issue herein and ordered the Respondent to be incarcerated, to pay certain costs, and to participate in a public works program. The Respondent was incarcerated at the Jackson County, Florida jail from February 4, 1991 through March 20, 1991 on the marijuana possession charge at issue in this proceeding. He has completed service of his incarceration time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission revoking the certification of the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Richter. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Respondent presented no Findings of Fact) 1. - 14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Rockenstein, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey S. Richter 3881 Highway 273 Graceville, FL 32440 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and issued certificate no. 14-84-502-04. Respondent's work in law enforcement in Florida has been as a correctional officer. On the night of December 27, 1986, Respondent left his home to go to the American Legion in Lake City, Florida. On his way he met his friend Eddie Goodbread, Jr. Goodbread asked the Respondent if he could go with him to the American Legion Club. The Respondent agreed to have Goodbread come with him. Once at the American Legion the two men socialized. When they got ready to leave the club the Respondent left with his girlfriend. Goodbread took the Respondent's car and parked it on Myrtle Street. Goodbread then went with the Respondent and the Respondent's girlfriend and another person, which the Respondent describes as a girl, to the house of a friend other than Goodbread. At that point the Respondent and Goodbread split up again. Respondent was then with his girlfriend and Goodbread had the keys to Respondent's car. The Respondent came back later and met with Goodbread. Prior to the rendezvous, while Respondent had been with his girlfriend in her car, he had placed a .25 caliber automatic pistol in the glove box of that car. He had a license to carry this weapon issued by local authorities. The weapon was not contemplated as being a necessary item for his work as a correctional officer. When the Respondent got out of his girlfriend's car and approached Goodbread, the Respondent had the pistol in his coat pocket. Respondent told Goodbread that he was ready to go home because he had to go to work the next morning. Goodbread said, in kidding with the Respondent, that he did not have the car keys and that he had locked them in the car. Respondent recognized that he was joking with him. Nonetheless, Respondent looked in the car and saw that the keys were not there. Respondent returned to Goodbread and told Goodbread to give him his keys. Goodbread again told Respondent that the keys were locked in the car. Respondent told Goodbread that he was starting to go home. Goodbread's reaction to this remark was to get in the car and say "let's go." Goodbread then jumped out of the car and said that he was not ready to go. Respondent told him to come on and give him his keys. Respondent told Goodbread "come on man. Let's go." Goodbread told Respondent that he wasn't ready to go that he wanted to talk to some girl. Respondent said "come on let's go." Respondent took the gun out and said "you are going to make me put this on you. Come on let's go." Goodbread grabbed the gun unexpectedly and the gun discharged and killed Goodbread. Respondent never intended to injure Goodbread in his display of the pistol. Eight or ten witnesses saw the incident. It was investigated by the Lake City Police Department and Respondent cooperated in that endeavor to include turning over the pistol to the police and giving a voluntary statement about the incident. Respondent was charged through the Grand Jury of Columbia County, Florida, with the exhibition of the handgun in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense and contrary to Section 790.10, Florida Statutes. A copy of that indictment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Respondent plead guilty to the offense and was fined $176. The firearm was forfeited to the state, he received 11 days in jail and a condition was placed upon him not to possess a firearm for one year. Respondent claims that as a consequence of the incident with his friend Goodbread he began to drink more than he had before. There being no frame of reference to compare his drinking habits before and after the incident, this comment has little utility in understanding his motivation to drink and drive. It has been established that on September 13, 1987, in the early morning hours of that day, specifically around 1:30 a.m., the Respondent was observed by Deputy Sheriff Charles R. Tate of the Columbia County, Florida Sheriff's office, driving in a reckless manner. In this incident the Respondent pulled out of Church Street onto Bay Avenue in Lake City, Florida, in a reckless manner. The officer speeded up in his attempt to stop the Respondent and engaged the emergency equipment in the officer's car. Respondent went west bound on Bay and turned south on Marion Street which is U.S. 41. In the course of this pursuit Respondent accelerated to speeds up to 65 miles per hour. Respondent finally pulled over around the intersection of Marion Street and Grandview Avenue. Respondent cooperated with Officer Tate in the investigation of the driving offense. This included the officer noting that the Respondent had the smell of alcohol about his person. As a consequence, the Respondent was asked to perform certain activities associated with a field sobriety test to ascertain if Respondent was capable of operating his motor vehicle. When the Respondent tried to perform the finger to nose test which is given with each hand, he was unable to do that with either hand. In trying to perform the walking test Respondent staggered and when he made the return trip in the walking test he nearly fell over and had to support himself. From the observations of the Respondent Officer Tate believed that the Respondent was driving under the influence when the stop was made. He arrested the Respondent for that offense and took him to the Florida Highway Patrol station where Robert Bellamy, a trained breathalyzer operator, administered a breathalyzer test to the Respondent. The results show that the Respondent was registering at .16 at 2:25 a.m., and registering at .15 at 2:27 a.m. with .10 being the legal presumption for impairment. Respondent was then taken to the Columbia County Jail. While at the jail correctional officer Jacklyn Yvonne Jones- Holland attempted to fingerprint his right hand. Ms. Holland knew of the Respondent before this evening but had had no opportunity before to speak to the Respondent. In the course of the fingerprinting Respondent took his left hand and rubbed it on the side of the officer's leg in the area of her groin. The first time he did this she stepped back on the chance that the Respondent was unaware of what he was doing at the time. However, when she moved the Respondent again put his hand on her leg in the area of her groin. Based upon the facts of this case in which Officer Tate describes the quality of the Respondent's impairment on a scale of 1 to 10, as being a 5 and Ms. Holland describes this impairment to be 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, Respondent is not found to be so under the influence that he did not realize what he was doing when inappropriately touching Ms. Holland in two instances. When he touched her the second time Ms. Holland went to another part of the building and made out a complaint against the Respondent for his assault and he was arrested for that offense. An Officer Myers read the Respondent his rights related to the assault during which conversation Respondent said, "I'm drunk. Oh yeah, that's what I'm here for. I'm drunk." There was no verbal exchange between the Respondent and Ms. Holland during the inappropriate touching. Ms. Holland had not invited those actions by the Respondent. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 constitutes the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation for the offense of driving under the influence and the disposition of that case in which the Respondent was fined $411, had his license suspended for six months, and attended school for persons who have driven under the influence. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and received other counseling contemplated for persons who may have drinking problems. Respondent says that he does not drink at present and no evidence was offered which would refute that claim. Respondent was charged under information with the unlawful, intentional and knowing touching or striking of Jacklyn Yvonne Jones-Holland and plead guilty to battery. He received a period of probation of one year for that offense. Certified copies of the information and order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the defendant on probation can be found as exhibit numbers 5 and 4 respectively. The reckless display of the firearm leading to the death of his friend, and the battery committed on Ms. Holland are all indications of a lack of good moral character and are events for which the Respondent has no acceptable explanation or excuse. Driving under the influence is reprehensible but does not show a lack of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the certificate of the Respondent for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3816 The facts as presented by the Respondent are commented on as follows: Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not accepted to the extent that it argues that the incident involving the death of Mr. Goodbread is directly responsible for the fact that the Respondent was driving under the influence on the night in question and committed the battery on Ms. Holland. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Respondent was too under the influence to understand the fact of his battery against Ms. Holland is rejected. His testimony that he does not have a recollection of touching Ms. Holland runs contrary to the impression of the facts, that impression being that the act of the Respondent was volitional. The idea of his cooperation with Trooper Bellamy in the administration of the breathalyzer examination and the efforts to comply with what was expected of him in responding to the circumstance of the driving under influence offense is recognized as mitigation, but does not explain away the offense. The suggestion in Paragraph 7 that the death of the friend and the driving under the influence are interrelated is not accepted. Respondent did indicate that he was emotionally upset over the death of his friend, this would be expected but it is not clear to what extent his drinking increased following the death of the friend as compared to his drinking habits before that time. Respondent's suggestion that he is free from the effects of alcohol problems at present was not refuted. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he presently has any problem with alcohol abuse. Reference to other traffic violations and his service record as a correctional officer leaves a neutral impression of the Respondent which is neither to his advantage or that of the Petitioner. Consequently, the facts of those prior events have not been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1792 Lake City, Florida 32056-1792 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for a real estate salesperson license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is 29 years old. He is currently selling timeshare units at the Westgate Resort in the Orlando area. He also works part-time as a pizza delivery person. Petitioner is being paid on an hourly basis by Westgate, since he does not hold a real estate salesperson license. If he had a license, he could be paid on commission and would have the potential to earn more money. In April 2002, Petitioner completed a three-week long "real estate school" and passed the related examination. In June 2002, Petitioner filed with the Department an application for a real estate salesperson license. The Department and the Commission are the state agencies responsible for licensing and regulating real estate professionals in Florida. On the application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question as to whether he had been convicted of, found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any crime. He listed the following offenses: petty theft; trespassing; false information; obstructing justice; and domestic battery. Each of the offenses except for the domestic battery occurred in Sarpy County, Nebraska, where Petitioner lived prior to coming to Florida. The domestic battery occurred in Osceola County, Florida. The petty theft offense occurred in 1994, when Petitioner and a friend stole a street sign that bore one of their names. Petitioner was 19 years old at the time. He paid restitution of $150 for the street sign to resolve the charge. The trespassing offense occurred in 1995 when Petitioner and a friend were caught swimming in a public pool after hours. Petitioner was 20 years old at the time. He paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The false information offense occurred in 1996 when Petitioner knowingly and intentionally lied to a police officer regarding the identity of the friend who was riding in Petitioner's car. The friend had a warrant and he asked Petitioner to give the police officer a false name for him, which Petitioner did. Petitioner was 21 years old at the time, and he paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The obstructing justice offense occurred in 1997 when Petitioner was at a party and refused to open the door for the police, who had been called to the party to investigate a sexual assault. The party was not at Petitioner's home, and he was not charged in connection with the sexual assault. Petitioner was 22 years old at the time, and he paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The record does not include the arrest reports or judgments related to the Nebraska offenses, which would detail whether the offenses were felonies or misdemeanors and would establish the precise legal dispositions of those cases. However, Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that he simply paid a fine to resolve the charges against him suggests that the offenses were misdemeanors and that Petitioner either pled guilty or "no contest" (i.e., nolo contendere). The domestic battery offense occurred in March 2001 and involved Petitioner's then-fiancée, Sheila Almodovar. Ms. Almodovar is the mother of Petitioner's daughter, who was born in October 1999. The domestic battery offense stemmed from an argument that Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar were having in their shared apartment. Petitioner was arrested after the police were called to the apartment by Ms. Almodovar, and they observed a bruise on Ms. Almodovar's face. Ms. Almodovar told the police that the bruise was caused by Petitioner. At the hearing, Ms. Almodovar testified that she had lied to the police regarding the source of the bruise. She testified that Petitioner did not strike her, but instead only "moved her out of the way" as he was leaving the apartment. She further testified that she caused the bruise to her own face by hitting it against the wall in the bathroom after Petitioner left the apartment and that Petitioner did not see her bang her head. Petitioner's testimony at the hearing regarding the incident was virtually identical to Ms. Almodovar's testimony, but it is inconsistent in some respects with the sworn testimony that he gave to the Commission in April 2003. At that time, Petitioner testified that he actually saw Ms. Almodovar bang her head against the wall in the bedroom. After the domestic battery incident, Petitioner spent the weekend in jail. He testified that he pled "no contest" to the charge; that adjudication was withheld; and that he was sentenced to probation, community service, and required to take domestic violence and anger management classes, all of which he satisfactorily completed. On July 19, 2002, Petitioner's license application was "administratively denied" because of his criminal record, and he was directed to appear before the Commission on August 21, 2002, to answer questions regarding his application. In advance of his appearance before the Commission, Petitioner presented three letters of recommendation to the Commission. The letters were from his father, Ms. Almodovar, and Ms. Almodovar's sister. The letters praised Petitioner's actions in taking care of his daughter and referred to his "ambition" and "motivation" to succeed in the real estate profession. Petitioner attended the August 21, 2002, Commission meeting as directed. The Commission gave Petitioner an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding each of the offenses listed on his application, which Petitioner attempted to do. At the end of the meeting, the Commission voted to deny Petitioner's license application. The denial was memorialized by the Commission in an Order dated August 29, 2002. In September 2002, Petitioner was again arrested for domestic battery involving Ms. Almodovar. According to Petitioner, the incident occurred when he and Ms. Almodovar got into an argument when Petitioner was picking up his daughter from Ms. Almodovar. The police report from the incident was not introduced into evidence, and the circumstances giving rise to Petitioner's arrest are not entirely clear from the testimony of Ms. Almodovar and Petitioner at the hearing. Petitioner testified that he spent 60 days in jail after his arrest but that the charges against him were ultimately "dropped." Ms. Almodovar testified at the hearing that Petitioner "did not deserve" to be arrested for the September 2002 incident because she had lied to the police regarding what Petitioner had done. Petitioner testified that Ms. Almodovar's sister, who was a witness to the confrontation, was going to testify for him if the case went to trial. Ms. Almodovar blamed her actions towards Petitioner and her lying to the police on her mental instability. She testified that she has been diagnosed as being "bi-polar" and that she is seeing a psychiatrist and is on medication for her mental instability. On April 16, 2003, the Commission considered Petitioner's license application in response to his request for reconsideration of the August 2002 denial. Petitioner and his father both addressed the Commission and responded to questions from the Commission members. Again, Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding each of his prior incidents. There were several passing references to the second incident of domestic battery at the April 2003 Commission meeting. However, it was clear from the transcript of that meeting that the members of the Commission were confused regarding the circumstances of each incident or were unaware that there were two separate incidents. Petitioner did nothing to clarify the Commission's confusion and, indeed, actually added to that confusion by discussing both incidents together without distinguishing between them. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission again voted to deny Petitioner's license application. That decision was memorialized by the Commission in an Order dated April 16, 2003. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed his request for a formal administrative hearing, which led to this proceeding. In August 2003, Petitioner was arrested for possession of marijuana. The arrest report is not part of the record, but Petitioner testified that he was charged only with a misdemeanor. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that marijuana was found in his car, but he claimed that it did not belong to him. Instead, both Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar testified that the marijuana belonged to Ms. Almodovar's sister, whom Petitioner was living with at the time. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Almodovar's sister "set him up" for the arrest as a means to get him to leave the apartment that they shared. Petitioner has a lawyer and is "fighting" the possession of marijuana charge. The record does not reflect where that case is in the judicial process. The testimony given by Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar at the hearing regarding the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's recent offenses was not patently unbelievable, but it was not overly persuasive either. For example, it is difficult to square Petitioner's claim that he was "set up" on the possession of marijuana charge by Ms. Almodovar's sister when she had previously written a letter of recommendation for Petitioner in which she characterized him as a "friend" and a "model citizen" and that she was allegedly prepared to testify for Petitioner in connection with the September 2002 domestic violence incident. At the time Petitioner filed his license application, he was raising his daughter on his own because Ms. Almodovar was unable to do so as a result of her mental instability. Subsequently, Ms. Almodovar began receiving counseling and taking medication which has allowed her to share custody of the daughter with Petitioner. As a result, there is no inconsistency between the statements on Petitioner's application and in the recommendation letters regarding his status as a single parent and Petitioner's testimony before the Commission in April 2003 that he had shared custody of his daughter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order denying Petitioner's license application. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2003.
