Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joseph F. Friedman, was born January 17, 1926, and was, at the time of final hearing, 58 years of age. In 1980 Petitioner noticed an advertisement for the position of Crimes Compensation Field Representative with the Respondent's Bureau of Crimes Compensation. At that time Petitioner registered with the Department of Administration (DOA) and was certified as eligible by DOA to fill the position. Although certified by DOA, Petitioner did not file a State of Florida Employment Application with Respondent, or take any other action which would have affirmatively apprised Respondent of his interest in any employment position. In 1982 Petitioner again saw an advertisement for the position of Crimes Compensation Field Representative and this time filed a completed State of Florida Employment Application with Respondent on April 23, 1982. By letter dated May 11, 1982, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Crimes Compensation, Herbert G. Parker, advised Petitioner that his ". . . application would be retained on file for reference should a vacancy occur in the immediate future. (Emphasis added.) Respondent's personnel manual (Respondent's Exhibit 3) provides in Section 1-A-4A(5): To ensure department wide consistency in accepting applications for vacant positions, the guidelines listed will be followed as positions are advertised and certificates of eligibles are worked. In order to be considered as an applicant and to be considered for appointment, persons must file a properly completed and signed appli- cation for the position applied for. A person who expresses interest in a position but does not file a formal application is not considered an applicant. Persons who have filed an application for a position within an office previ- ously may have their application reactivated by the office at the option of the office manager or at the specific request of the applicant. (f) Offices will retain the applications of all applicants for positions for two years following the filling of a position. Although Respondent's policy requires that applications be retained for two years following the filling of a position, there is no agency policy which requires that they be considered for any future vacancies. Petitioner neither reapplied nor requested that his original application he held in the active file for future consideration. Notwithstanding the absence of a formal agency-wide policy, Mr. Parker has established a policy in his bureau that applications on file will be considered if a vacancy occurs within six months after that application had been previously considered. This six-month period is the "immediate future" referenced in his letter to Mr. Friedman of May 11, 1982. In early 1983 Petitioner noticed an advertisement for an opening for a Crimes Compensation Field Representative in Respondent's office. Petitioner did not formally apply for this position but, rather, engaged the services of an attorney to see why he had not been contacted regarding this vacancy. As a consequence of that contact, Respondent advised Petitioner's counsel that: . . . It is the Rule of the Department of Administration that non-state employees are purged from the list of eligibles every six months. In this case, Mr. Friedman should have asked for recertifi- cation in order to maintain his eligibility for consideration for the position in question. Respondent also advised Petitioner's counsel that Petitioner would be contacted for an interview for the current opening of Crimes Compensation Field Representative and, if found to be the most qualified, would be offered the position. Petitioner was in fact contacted and interviewed by Mr. Parker, along with ten other applicants. Among the applicants interviewed were three who were above 50 years of age, three who were above 40, one who was over 30, and four who were in their 20s. Ms. Sally Heyman, age 28 at the time, was selected to fill the position. Petitioner was advised by letter dated March 10, 1983, that he had not been selected. Mr. Parker evaluated the respective qualifications of Ms. Heyman and Petitioner. He found Petitioner qualified but felt Ms. Heyman's qualifications were exceptional and that she was clearly the better-qualified applicant. An examination of Ms. Heyman's credentials, as evidenced by her application and resume, reflects that in addition to considerable experience in the specific field of victim assistance, she also held a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, a master's degree in criminal justice, and was certified in crimes prevention. Mr. Friedman on the other hand held a bachelor's degree in social sciences (education) and his prior work experience had been as a detective for the New York City Police Department (retired) and as an investigator for Calder Race Course and security director for Gulf Stream Race Course. The respective credentials of Ms. Heyman and Petitioner demonstrate that Ms. Heyman was the better-qualified applicant. Further, Mr. Parker had reservations concerning Petitioner's ability to work closely with crimes compensation victims. The work of a Crimes Compensation Field Representative requires a caring, compassionate person who can empathize with the crime victim and establish a rapport which will engender a feeling of confidence that "This person can help me." Victims of crime are not only brutalized by the crime itself but are often emotionally battered by the Criminal Justice System. Consequently, a Crimes Compensation Field Representative must be capable of exhibiting the care and empathy essential to aid the victims of crime. Mr. Parker's reservations concerning Petitioner's ability to fulfill this criteria, though subjective, are clearly pertinent, job-related, and not discriminatory. On August 23, 1983, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that he was not employed for the March, 1983, vacancy because of his age, and that Respondent had a policy of discrimination because of age. Subsequent to the filing of Petitioner's charge of discrimination, two additional positions were filled which Petitioner asserts substantiate his claim that Respondent had a policy of discrimination because of age. The first position was for an opening in the Respondent's Miami field office and was filled by Ms. Carol Springer, age 28, in September, 1983. Ms. Springer was an employee of Respondent in its Tallahassee office at the time in question, and previously had requested a transfer to Miami. Under Respondent's employee policies, current employees are entitled to first consideration when vacancies occur in an area to which they desire to be transferred. The second position, the vacancy created in the Tallahassee office by Ms. Springer's transfer to the Miami field office, was filled by Ms. Barbara Bobo, age 32, in September, 1983. Ms. Bobo's application and resume reflect considerable experience working with child abuse victims, the emotionally and financially disadvantaged, the mentally retarded, the elderly, and the disabled. She also held a Bachelor of Arts degree in special education. Petitioner did not submit an application for either of these positions or otherwise apprise the Respondent of his interest. Therefore, Petitioner was not contacted or considered for either vacancy. The current staffing pattern of Respondent's Bureau of Crimes Compensation reveals that a total of 16 persons are employed, including Mr. Parker. Of that number, 33 percent are over the age of 40, including two over the age of 50 years-- Mr. Parker, age 55, and one George Peters, age 57, a Crimes Compensation Field Representative.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the certification, and the revocation of certification, of officers and instructors in the criminal justice disciplines. Mr. Marchetti was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on August 30, 2008, and was issued law enforcement certificate number 278005. Mr. Marchetti was not employed by a criminal justice agency on October 30, 2016. On that date, in the early afternoon, Deputy Lawhorn was working as a road patrol deputy with Deputy Brewster, her field training officer (FTO), during an early phase of her training. The deputies arrived at 108 Petals Road in Fort Pierce in their marked patrol unit to serve an injunction for protection, a civil restraining order, directed to Timothy Marchetti. The deputies were to identify the person to be served, provide him a copy of the injunction papers, explain what the order required, and advise of the court date. The deputies knocked on the door, and Mr. Marchetti answered the door. The deputies, wearing St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office uniforms in plain view of Mr. Marchetti, announced that they were there to serve process on Timothy Marchetti and asked to speak with him. Mr. Marchetti falsely identified himself as his brother, Mark Marchetti, with a date of birth of September 15, 1983. Mr. Marchetti added that he was often mistaken for his brother. The deputies asked when Timothy Marchetti would be returning. Mr. Marchetti responded that Timothy was at church with his mother and should return shortly. The paperwork that the deputies had been provided prior to serving the injunction included a driver's license photo, and that photo appeared to match the individual the deputies were talking to. The paperwork also indicated that Timothy Marchetti had an identifying mark, a tattoo on his biceps. When asked to see his biceps, Mr. Marchetti instead showed the deputies his triceps, which had no tattoo. Believing that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them, but wanting to continue to investigate because sometimes brothers do bear close physical resemblance, Deputy Brewster asked Deputy Lawhorn to return to the patrol unit to run the name "Mark Marchetti" through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. At the vehicle, she also pulled up a picture of Mark Marchetti from the DAVID website. That picture did not match the driver's license picture in the deputies' possession or the appearance of the individual that had answered the door. Deputy Lawhorn returned to the doorway, told Deputy Brewster what she had learned and asked him to check the information. After Deputy Brewster went to the vehicle, Mr. Marchetti attempted to leave. Deputy Lawhorn blocked his way and advised him that he could not leave. Mr. Marchetti had not yet been arrested. The deputies had a well-founded suspicion that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them about his identity, and they were continuing their investigation of that crime. At this point, a woman who identified herself as Mr. Marchetti's mother came to the property and encountered Deputy Brewster. She confirmed that the individual in the doorway was her son, Timothy Marchetti. Deputy Brewster returned to the doorway and advised Mr. Marchetti that he was under arrest. After his arrest, the deputies placed themselves on either side of Mr. Marchetti to handcuff him, and Respondent pulled away in "surprise or shock" as he was being handcuffed, but there was minimal, if any, active physical resistance. After his arrest, Mr. Marchetti apologized to Deputy Brewster for lying to him about his identity. Through his deception, Mr. Marchetti resisted, obstructed, and opposed Deputies Lawhorn and Brewster in their execution of legal process. Mr. Marchetti failed to maintain good moral character in that he willfully obstructed law enforcement officers in the lawful execution of their duty to serve an injunction against him by giving them a false name and date of birth. No evidence of any prior disciplinary history was introduced for Mr. Marchetti.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Timothy J. Marchetti in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and suspending his certification for a period of five days, followed by a one-year period of probation subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2019.
