The Issue As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI. CASE NO. 95-3553 On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed. 1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows: A. 1-4-95 Computer Research $100.00 B. 1-5-95 Surveillance 130.00 C. 1-5-95 Travel Time 32.50 D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 ) 33.75 E. 1-6-95 Surveillance 325.00 F. 1-6-95 Travel Time 65.00 G. 1-7-95 Standby Time 65.00 $751.25 The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00. His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted. CASE 95-4775 At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether there is just cause for the City of Cape Coral's decision to terminate the employment of Hector Calderon, a police officer with the City of Cape Coral Police Department.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The City of Cape Coral (the "City") employed Hector Calderon as a police officer in the operations division of the Cape Coral Police Department (the "Department") from January 11, 1997 through January 11, 2002, the effective date of his termination. Officer Calderon was employed as a patrol officer, and his main duties were traffic enforcement during the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. On October 29, 2001, Sgt. Keith Perrin of the Department received a telephone complaint concerning Officer Calderon from a woman named Cheryl Sugar. Ms. Sugar told Sgt. Perrin that Officer Calderon had lived with her over the past several months. She offered information about narcotics usage and deviant sexual behavior by Officer Calderon, both on and off duty. She specifically alleged that Officer Calderon had been taking cocaine. Ms. Sugar also told Sgt. Perrin that Officer Calderon had been seeing a woman named Nicole Beougher, whom he had met working at a Circle K store when he stopped there during his work shift. Ms. Sugar alleged that Officer Calderon had been taking Ms. Beougher on "ride-alongs" in his police car. Ms. Sugar was angry at Officer Calderon because she had only recently discovered that he had also been dating Ms. Beougher. She and Ms. Beougher had spoken to each other, and realized that Officer Calderon had been deceiving both of them. Sgt. Perrin made a report to Lt. Michael Maher, the Department's head of internal affairs. Lt. Maher contacted Ms. Sugar by telephone on the morning of October 30, 2001. Ms. Sugar reiterated her allegations and agreed to come in later that afternoon to give a sworn statement and submit to a polygraph examination. However, she telephoned Lt. Maher at 3 p.m. and stated that she had placed herself in an "awkward position" and could not give a statement after all. From that point forward, Ms. Sugar declined to cooperate with the Department, despite frequent attempts by Lt. Maher to secure her testimony. On or about November 3, 2001, officers from the Department responded to a domestic dispute call involving Officer Calderon and Ms. Sugar. The officers on the scene noted that Officer Calderon acted unusually. He was upset, shaken, and verbally abusive. He refused to leave the scene until Lt. Maher gave him a direct order to leave or go to jail. This incident, coupled with Ms. Sugar's earlier complaint, led Lt. Maher to place Officer Calderon on administrative leave and send him for a "fitness for duty" psychological evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by a psychologist on November 8, 2001. The psychologist concluded that Officer Calderon was not capable of returning to duty. Officer Calderon was placed on administrative desk duty and his patrol vehicle was taken from him. Officer Calderon's patrol vehicle was assigned to another officer, Robert Slager. Following routine procedure, Officer Slager inventoried the vehicle to assure that Officer Calderon's personal property was accounted for and returned to him. While conducting the inventory, Officer Slager discovered sixteen driver's licenses in the vehicle. The licenses were in a cup holder, in plain sight. Upon investigation, Lt. Maher determined that the driver's licenses had been confiscated by Officer Calderon during traffic stops over a four-year period. Department procedure called for confiscated licenses to be turned in to the records division along with the citation, but Officer Calderon simply kept them in his vehicle. Lt. Maher questioned Officer Calderon as to why he kept the licenses. Officer Calderon's only explanation was that they were his "personal collection." Several officers testified that they had heard of the practice of keeping confiscated driver’s licenses as trophies, but all denied that they did it themselves. They could not or would not name any other officer who indulged in the practice. Officer Calderon kept the licenses in plain sight, and his vehicle was inspected by his superiors on a regular basis, yet no disciplinary action was taken against him concerning the confiscated licenses until this investigation developed. Despite Ms. Sugar's failure to cooperate, Lt. Maher continued investigating her allegations. Ms. Sugar had provided the name of Nicole Beougher, and Lt. Maher contacted Ms. Beougher, who provided a sworn statement and testified at the hearing. In October or November 2000, Ms. Beougher was working nights in a Circle K store in Officer Calderon’s patrol zone. She was 18 years old. Officer Calderon came in, and they began talking. He started coming in frequently to talk to her. He gave her his business card, adding a handwritten note with the code for his voice mailbox at work. During their conversations, Ms. Beougher mentioned that she had never ridden in a police car, and Officer Calderon offered to take her on a "ride-along." At the time, the Department had a "ride-along" program as part of its community outreach. The program encouraged citizens to ride with patrol officers as they conducted their daily course of duties. Interested persons were required to fill out a release of liability form and permit the Department to run a criminal background check. By Department policy, each citizen was limited to one ride-along every six months. Ms. Beougher completed the form and went on a ride- along with Officer Calderon on Christmas Eve 2000. He picked her up at her mother’s house at 6 p.m. and drove to the police station for roll call. Then Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher went out on the road on his patrol duties. They discussed personal matters, such as whether Ms. Beougher had a boyfriend. At around midnight, they drove to a secluded area on the north end of Cape Coral. Officer Calderon stopped the car. They both got out and walked to the rear of the car. Officer Calderon began kissing Ms. Beougher. Nothing further of a sexual nature occurred. Officer Calderon dropped Ms. Beougher off at her mother's house at approximately 5:30 a.m. on Christmas Day. In January 2001, Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher began seeing each other regularly. On May 6, 2001, Officer Calderon moved in with Ms. Beougher. While they lived together, Officer Calderon, on duty, would stop by their apartment five or six times per shift, sometimes for as long as 45 minutes. On one or two of these occasions, they engaged in oral sex. While they lived together, Ms. Beougher rode along with Officer Calderon on his work shift on 15 to 20 different occasions. Ms. Beouger never filled out another release of liability form, and the number of ride-alongs was clearly in violation the Department's policy. However, the evidence at hearing established that the Department's enforcement of its policy was lax. Officer Calderon's shift sergeant saw Ms. Beougher with him on more than one occasion and made no inquiry. On one or two of these unauthorized ride-alongs, they drove to a secluded area of northern Cape Coral, and Ms. Beougher performed oral sex on Officer Calderon. One evening while they were living together, Officer Calderon brought home a small amount of cocaine and offered to use it with Ms. Beougher. She was afraid to use it, fearing that Officer Calderon was trying to set her up for an arrest. Ms. Beougher said she would use it if he did first. Officer Calderon snorted the cocaine through a rolled dollar bill. Ms. Beougher then joined him. From that point forward, Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher used cocaine frequently on weekends when Officer Calderon was not working. Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher frequently spent weekends at a Motel 6 in North Fort Myers. They did this to get away from their roommate and to be closer to the clubs downtown. They would drink heavily at the clubs, to the point where Ms. Beougher could not remember much of what occurred. They would bring other people, male and female, back to the motel and have sex with them. They also used cocaine while at the motel. Officer Calderon sometimes worked details at a bar called the Hired Hand Saloon, a place he also frequented when off duty. A prior acquaintance named Roger Montgomery worked there as a bouncer. Ms. Beougher testified that Mr. Montgomery was the source of Officer Calderon's cocaine. At the hearing, Mr. Montgomery confirmed the details of Ms. Beougher's testimony. At the Hired Hand, Mr. Montgomery would give Officer Calderon "bumps" of cocaine, i.e., small amounts sufficient for him and Ms. Beougher to get high. On at least two occasions, Mr. Montgomery sold $50 worth of cocaine to Officer Calderon. Mr. Montgomery never gave or sold cocaine to Officer Calderon while he was on duty. Mr. Montgomery never saw Officer Calderon appear to be under the influence of alcohol or any other drug while he was on duty. Mr. Montgomery never actually witnessed Officer Calderon taking cocaine, though he was certain that he saw him high on cocaine. Ms. Beougher testified that she and Officer Calderon used cocaine while at the Hired Hand. On one occasion when Officer Calderon was off duty at the Hired Hand, he asked Mr. Montgomery for cocaine. Mr. Montgomery did not have the cocaine on his person, but did have some in the ashtray of his truck. He gave Officer Calderon the keys to his truck, and Officer Calderon went out to the truck. When Mr. Montgomery later went out to his truck, the cocaine was gone. Officer Calderon invited Mr. Montgomery to the Motel 6 to use cocaine and have sex with Ms. Beougher and him. Mr. Montgomery wanted to go, but couldn't. Mr. Montgomery testified that Ms. Beougher, under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, performed oral sex on both him and Officer Calderon at the Hired Hand. Ms. Beougher could not recall this incident, but did not deny that it might have happened while she was under the influence. One evening at the Hired Hand, Officer Calderon gave Mr. Montgomery a bag of marijuana. Officer Calderon told him that he had confiscated the marijuana from a group of teenagers while on duty. Officer Calderon had earlier shown the marijuana to Ms. Beougher and told her the same story. On one occasion, Officer Calderon asked Mr. Montgomery to get him the drug Ecstasy. Mr. Montgomery made the attempt but was unable to get it because his seller's supplier had been arrested. Officer Calderon and Ms. Beougher took the drug Oxycontin on several occasions. Officer Calderon procured the drug from a person unknown to Ms. Beougher. Officer Calderon had no car other than his patrol vehicle, which he was authorized to take home. Ms. Beougher testified that while off duty, Officer Calderon drove the patrol vehicle under the influence of alcohol on several occasions. He also allowed Ms. Beougher to drive the police vehicle. Sometime in August 2001, Officer Calderon moved out of Ms. Beougher's apartment. He told Ms. Beougher he was moving because there had been a drug bust in the apartment next door, and he was concerned that the Department would somehow associate him with it. Officer Calderon's move also coincided with his learning that Ms. Beougher was pregnant with twins. Ms. Beougher was certain that Officer Calderon was the father. Officer Calderon did not deny it, but wanted to make certain prior to undertaking support obligations. The results of a DNA test were pending at the time of the hearing. Ms. Beougher testified that her drug use ceased when she learned she was pregnant, and that she never saw Officer Calderon take illegal drugs after she stopped taking them. During the investigation, Lt. Maher discovered that Officer Calderon failed to notify the Department of several address changes, in violation of General Order D-1, Section III.18. Officer Calderon admitted to the sexual allegations that occurred at the Hired Hand and the Motel 6. He denied having sex with Ms. Beougher in his patrol car, and denied that he had ever used any illegal drugs. Officer Calderon alleged that Ms. Sugar and Ms. Beougher were bitter about his seeing them both at the same time, and thus concocted a false tale of his drug usage. He contended that Mr. Montgomery, a known drug dealer, had been intimidated through fear of arrest into testifying, and that Mr. Montgomery was sexually involved with Ms. Beougher and thus part of the conspiracy. Officer Calderon's contentions about the opposing witnesses cannot be credited. Neither Ms. Beougher nor Mr. Montgomery knew the other's last name, and both credibly testified that their only involvement with each other was through Officer Calderon at the Hired Hand. Ms. Beougher admitted to being angry at Officer Calderon, but credibly denied that she invented her story of drug usage. Adding to her credibility was that she freely implicated herself in the illegal activities that occurred, rather than portraying herself as an innocent bystander. Mr. Montgomery admitted that his motive for testifying was fear of prosecution for his drug dealings. He was reluctant to testify against Officer Calderon. He did not want to get Officer Calderon in trouble. His testimony was credible and corroborated that of Ms. Beougher as to the particulars of occurrences at the Hired Hand. Officer Calderon had a prior disciplinary history, which Chief Gibbs testified played a role in his decision to terminate Officer Calderon. In 1999, Officer Calderon was given a eight-hour suspension without pay for failing to report the discharge of his service revolver. He and his live-in girlfriend at the time, Allison Gimello, were involved in a domestic disturbance. When the police arrived, they discovered bullet holes in a closet door. Ms. Gimello told police that Officer Calderon had fired his police weapon after threatening to kill her. She later changed her story, saying that she had accidentally fired the gun. Because of this ambiguity, Officer Calderon was disciplined only for not reporting the discharge of his weapon. He did not file a grievance or appeal his suspension. Also in 1999, Officer Calderon was disciplined for showing a photograph of himself, naked with an erection, to female employees of the Department. Without grievance or appeal, Officer Calderon received a 24-hour suspension without pay. Upon completion of the internal affairs investigation in the instant case, Officer Calderon was charged with the following: failure to notify the Department of an address change; loafing while on duty; use of a controlled substance while off duty; purchase and possession of a controlled substance while on and off duty; intentional violation of state law; conduct unbecoming a public employee; using the prestige of his official position or the Department's time, facilities, equipment or supplies for private gain; improper performance of his duties; engaging in sex while on duty and in a City of Cape Coral police vehicle; malfeasance or misfeasance in office; perpetration of an act or conduct which causes substantial doubt concerning an officer's honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state, irrespective of whether such act or conduct constitutes a crime; and violation of the rules of conduct of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("CJSTC") by failing to maintain good moral character and having a pattern of conduct not consistent with state standards. Lt. Maher's internal affairs report, dated December 5, 2001, sustained all of the charges except loafing on duty and use of a controlled substance. Lt. Maher dropped the loafing charge after consulting with Officer Calderon's immediate superiors, who did not see a problem with his frequent visits to the Circle K store or to the apartment he later shared with Ms. Beougher, provided his productivity was unaffected. It was conceded at the hearing that Officer Calderon was one of the most productive officers in the Department throughout his employment. Lt. Maher dropped the drug usage charge because the only drug test given to Officer Calderon came back negative. At the outset of the investigation, Lt. Maher wanted to test Officer Calderon for drugs but was advised by the City attorney that he lacked reasonable suspicion to order a test. By the time his investigation built reasonable suspicion, Officer Calderon had been placed on administrative duty and was aware that the Department was looking into his activities. Nonetheless, Lt. Maher believed that, without a positive drug test, he could not sustain a charge of drug usage. At the hearing, Officer Calderon challenged the alleged inconsistency between the Department's finding there was insufficient evidence to support that he used drugs, but finding the same evidence sufficient to support that he bought and/or possessed drugs. This argument is rejected. The evidence at hearing established that Officer Calderon both possessed and used drugs. Lt. Maher's decision to drop one of the potential charges does not change the fact that the other charge was proven. Lt. Maher's report was forwarded to Officer Calderon's immediate superiors for a recommendation on corrective action. One of the superiors, Lt. Craig Durham, recommended termination. Officer Calderon's immediate superior, Sgt. John Dickman, recommended a 30-day suspension without pay or benefits. These recommendations then went to the division commander, Major B. A. Murphy, who recommended termination and forwarded the file to Chief Gibbs for his review on December 12, 2001. Officer Calderon elected to have the recommended discipline reviewed by a Department Disciplinary Review Board ("DDRB"). The DDRB was composed of five Department employees: two selected by Officer Calderon, two selected by the Department's administrators, and a fifth member selected by the other four. Lt. Maher presented the case for the Department. Officer Calderon presented his case in rebuttal. The DDRB then deliberated and rendered a decision. On December 19, 2001, the DDRB unanimously recommended termination. On December 21, 2001, Chief Gibbs entered a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action terminating Officer Calderon's employment. Officer Calderon sought and received an appeal of this decision with the City Manager. On January 10, 2002, Interim City Manager Howard Kunik upheld the decision to terminate Officer Calderon's employment.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License Number D94-17752, which was issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective October 17, 1996, to October 17, 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Navarro Security. On February 11 and 12, 1997, Respondent was on duty at a security post, during the evening hours, at William Lehman car dealership located in Broward County, Florida.1 That car dealership was a client of Navarro Security. Respondent's duties at this security post included patrolling the premises in a motorized golf cart. Respondent was not permitted to sleep while on duty. On February 11, 1997, Respondent was found by Corey Targia, a supervisor (captain) employed by Navarro Security, to be asleep in his own vehicle at approximately 3:34 a.m. Respondent was supposed to be on duty at that time. Respondent did not wake up until Mr. Targia knocked on the window of the vehicle. On February 12, 1997, Respondent was again found by Mr. Targia to be asleep while he was on duty. On this occasion, Mr. Targia found Respondent at approximately 3:52 a.m. sleeping in a car owned by the dealership. A sign advertising the sale of the car was positioned in a manner to obscure Respondent's presence in the vehicle. Mr. Targia called by radio Mike Crutcher, another supervisor (lieutenant) employed by Navarro Security, and asked Mr. Crutcher come to the site with a camera. Mr. Crutcher arrived at the site and observed Respondent sleeping. Respondent awakened before Mr. Crutcher could photograph him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Licensed be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1998.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of an alleged violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by sleeping while on duty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds a Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D92-08606, issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective June 2, 1994. During September and October of 1994, Motivated Security provided security services to Shurgard Storage, located at 1650 West Oakland Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 30, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a security officer by Motivated Security. On that date the Respondent's assigned post with Motivated Security was at the Shurgard Storage premises described above. On that date, the Respondent was assigned to the 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. At approximately 11:15 p.m. on September 30, 1994, while the Respondent was on duty at the post described above, the Respondent was sound asleep in a golf cart for a period of at least one-half hour.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case finding that the Respondent committed the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a six-month suspension of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 8th day of August 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner. Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. (All of these proposed details are essentially correct; it is simply not necessary to repeat them.) Findings submitted by Respondent. (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Gerald Brown 3551 N.W. 41st Street Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33309 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Petitioner's application for registration as a service warranty association sales representative should have been granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, William E. Andrews, currently resides in Largo, Florida with his wife and one child. He is employed as an Assistant Manager at T.V. Stereo Town, Inc. located in Largo, Florida. On April 22, 1985, the Petitioner filed with the Department of Insurance an application for qualification and registration as a Service Warranty Association Sales Representative. The application specified that the Petitioner would represent T.V. Stereo Town, Inc. On April 9, 1983, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Grand Theft. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Petitioner on probation for a period of three (3) years. The Petitioner was ordered to make restitution to the victim as a special condition of probation. The Petitioner was represented by counsel. On June 9, 1982, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Battery. The Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to a 10 day suspended jail term and supervised probation for a period of six months. The Petitioner was not represented by counsel. On May 13, 1983, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Obtaining Property in Return for a Worthless Check. The Court withheld adjudication and placed the Petitioner on unsupervised probation for a period of 60 days. The Petitioner was ordered to make restitution to the victim as a special condition of probation. The amount of the check was thirty-five dollars. The Petitioner was not represented by counsel. The grand theft charge involved theft of money and/or inventory from a business which the Petitioner and his ex-wife, Virginia Martin were involved with. The business consisted of a free standing display, or kiosk, which was set up in the middle of the Sunshine Mall in Pinellas County. The parent company was D & P Creations and the business involved gift shop merchandise. The Petitioner and Ms. Martin had an arrangement with D & P Creations wherein they would receive 20% of gross sales generated by the display. The business was opened on November 17, 1983 and closed on December 26, 1983. The loss in inventory and/or money to the parent company amounted to approximately $3,000. Throughout the operation of the business, the Petitioner worked as a desk clerk at the Gulf Sands Beach Resort Hotel. The Petitioner's ex-wife, Virginia Martin, worked as a bus driver for the Pinellas County School System. The Petitioner's wife actually ran the business, but Petitioner looked in on it from time to time. The Petitioner, upon considering advice of legal counsel, pled guilty to the offense of Grand Theft from D & P Creations. Virginia Martin, the Petitioner's ex-wife, was the victim of the battery charge to which Petitioner pled guilty. The battery occurred while the Petitioner and Ms. Martin were dating and before they were married. Petitioner and his ex-wife, Virginia Martin, maintained a joint account during the period when Petitioner pled guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check. The amount of the check was $35.00. The Petitioner and Virginia Martin were married in July of 1983; they were divorced in December of 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED THAT the Department of Insurance issue a final order denying William E. Andrew's application for registration as a service warranty association sales representative. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 17th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding Ruling Accepted, see R.O. paragraph 3. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 3. Matters not contained therein are rejected as conclusions of law. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Matters not included therein are rejected as argument and conclusions of law. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 4. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 5. Rejected as argument and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Tritschler, Esq. Department of Insurance and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Dowdell, Esq. General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David L. Levy, Esq. P. O. Box 5167 Largo, Florida 34294-5167 Hon. William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On February 26, 1987, Petitioner determined that Respondent met all criteria for certification as a law enforcement officer and issued to him Certificate Number 3-86-502-09. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department Detention Center (Jail). Respondent is a large, physically imposing man who is 6'2" tall and weighs well over 200 pounds. COUNT ONE On October 22, 1988, Reggie Nickens was arrested during a narcotics sting and was transported to the Jail, where he was booked as an arrestee. During the time Mr. Nickens was being transported to the Jail by Police Officer Richard Temple, Mr. Nickens was argumentative and unhappy with his predicament. However, Mr. Nickens was not physically belligerent, offered no physical resistance, and did not appear to be intoxicated. Mr. Nickens had no injury or medical treatment that required treatment when he was booked into the Jail. Mr. Nickens is less than 6 feet tall and weighs approximately 100 pounds less than the Respondent. On the night shift of October 22-23, 1988, Respondent was on duty as a detention officer in the Jail working under the supervision of Lt. Harry Marsh. At the time Respondent came on duty, Mr. Nickens was in a holding cell. After he came on duty, Respondent was asked to photograph Mr. Nickens. Respondent removed Mr. Nickens from the holding cell to photograph him with a Polaroid camera. Respondent did not follow proper jail procedure in removing Mr. Nickens from the holding cell in that he did not request proper backup and he did not have handcuffs on his person. Handcuffs are considered by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department to be standard equipment, and Respondent was expected to have handcuffs on his person at all times when on duty. Mr. Nickens was not handcuffed when Respondent removed him from the holding cell, even though he had been verbally belligerent while in the holding cell. Two video cameras record the movement of individuals in the booking area of the Jail, including the activity described in the following paragraphs. When Respondent removed Mr. Nickens, from the holding cell, Mr. Nickens, who is white, began to verbally abuse the Respondent, who is black, with racial slurs. Mr. Nickens moved around the Respondent, with his hands at his side. Although Mr. Nickens was verbally abusive and yelled in Respondent's face, he did not exhibit any threatening action with his hands. Respondent grabbed Mr. Nickens in the area of his neck, lifted him off his feet, pinned him against the wall of the booking area, slammed him to the floor, and jumped on top of him. Respondent was the physical aggressor in this incident and was not acting in a defensive posture. Mr. Nickens committed no physical act which could reasonably have been interpreted by Respondent as putting Respondent in physical jeopardy. Mr. Nickens submitted to Respondent's superior strength and did not make an effort to strike or otherwise resist when Respondent grabbed him by the throat. There was testimony that a hypoglossal hold is a self-defense technique that is taught at the Broward County Police Academy. To use this technique, one grabs an aggressor in the neck area and applies pressure to certain pressure points on the neck and under the jaw. There was conflicting testimony as to whether such a technique would be a permitted technique for use at the Jail to restrain a prisoner. Clearly, Commander Borino and the other supervisors who are responsible for the Jail's operation do not approve of the hypoglossal technique. Respondent asserts that he utilized the hypoglossal technique and then took Mr. Nickens to the floor and placed him in the prone position because Mr. Nickens resisted. The contention that Respondent used an approved self-defense technique in dealing with Mr. Nickens is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was not acting in self-defense in dealing with Mr. Nickens and that the force he used was excessive. After Mr. Nickens was taken to the floor, he was handcuffed with cuffs supplied by one of the other officers on duty at the Jail. Although he was provoked by Mr. Nickens verbal abuse, Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Mr. Nickens which escalated during the course of the incident. Commander Borino was of the opinion that no force was necessary. Had force been necessary, an arm restraint would have sufficed until the other officers on duty could have arrived to assist Respondent. Officer Gooden, who was in the booking area with an inmate, did not react properly to the situation. Officer Gooden allowed his inmate to roam freely in the booking area during the incident and did not attempt to intervene until after Respondent had taken Mr. Nickens to the floor. Officer Gooden should have immediately secured his inmate and stepped in to stop the incident as soon as he saw Respondent choking Mr. Nickens. It was not established that Officer Gooden's intervention would have prevented the incident. Prior to the incident involving Mr. Nickens, Respondent had been counseled by Lt. Marsh that the use of a choke hold on an inmate was unacceptable procedure. Respondent received no physical injury as a result of this incident. Mr. Nickens, however, was injured as a result of Respondent's actions. Lt. Marsh, the supervisor at the jail at the time at question and Barbara Rogers, the licensed practical nurse on duty at the Jail, responded to a call for backup. They found Mr. Nickens in a prone position with red marks on his neck. Blood was coming from his mouth, and he was coughing up phlegm with red blood in it. Because Nurse Rogers and Lt. Marsh were concerned that Mr. Nickens had suffered a serious injury, he was ordered transported from the Jail to Broward General Medical Center to receive medical treatment. There was no evidence that Mr. Nickens injuries were serious. COUNT II During the late evening hours of June 17, 1989, John Wroble, who was intoxicated, started a fight in a bar and sustained an injury to his eye that resulted in a black eye. After the fight, Mr. Wroble was arrested and transported to the Jail. Kevin Shults, an off-duty Fort Lauderdale Police Officer, arrested Mr. Wroble. Officer Shults observed the injury to Mr. Wroble's eye, but he did not observe an injury to his chin or any other injuries to Mr. Wroble. Officer Shults did not observe any blood on Mr. Wroble's shirt or chin at the time of the arrest. Mr. Wroble was intoxicated and submissive at the time of his arrest. Officer Albert Lustig, Jr., was the booking officer at the time Mr. Wroble was received into the Jail. Officer Lustig observed no injury to Mr. Wroble's chin and observed no blood on Mr. Wroble's shirt. Mr. Wroble was cooperative at booking. Respondent was on duty and serving as the officer in charge of the booking area at the times pertinent hereto. Lt. Glen Schrier, whose office was on the floor above the booking area, was the shift supervisor. Mr. Wroble was processed in to the Jail and placed in a holding cell with other inmates. However, no photographs or prints were taken of Mr. Wroble during the time of his incarceration. In that holding cell, Mr. Wroble became verbally belligerent and threatened to spit on the officers. Thereafter, Officer Nangle entered Mr. Wroble's cell, placed him face down on the floor, handcuffed his hands behind his back, shackled his legs, and handcuffed the restraints holding his hands to those holding his legs. This procedure was referred to as hog-tying an inmate. Mr. Wroble continued to be threatening and disruptive. Thereafter, Respondent ordered Mr. Wroble transferred to a single occupancy cell, which was on the floor above the booking area. Officer Nangle, with Officer McDonough as his backup, entered the holding cell and removed the handcuff that was holding his feet to his hands and removed the leg shackles. Respondent entered the holding cell and took over from Officers McDonough and Nangle. Mr. Wroble remained handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Respondent, who is a much larger man than Mr. Wroble, escorted Mr. Wroble from the holding cell to the elevator to the next floor. The distance between the holding cell and the elevator is approximately 40 steps. It normally takes 3 to 5 seconds to cover this distance. Respondent held Mr. Wroble's shoulder area with one hand and grabbed the back of Mr. Wroble's hair with the other hand so that Wroble's chin was pointed upward. Respondent directed Mr. Wroble into the elevator. When Mr. Wroble entered the elevator, Officers McDonough and Nangle heard a thud, which was caused by Mr. Wroble's body making contact with the rear of the elevator. Officers McDonough and Nangle followed Respondent and Mr. Wroble onto the elevator, but had no physical contact with Mr. Wroble, who remained under Respondent's control. Respondent forced Mr. Wroble against the rear of the elevator with his elbow. When Respondent and Mr. Wroble exited the elevator, Mr. Wroble was bleeding from a laceration to his chin, and blood had stained his shirt. There was a spot of blood outside the elevator after Respondent and Mr. Wroble had exited the elevator. Officers McDonough and Nangle had observed no injury to Mr. Wroble's chin prior to his being escorted onto the elevator by Respondent. Lt. Schrier saw Respondent and Mr. Wroble exit the elevator. Upon seeing the injury to Mr. Wroble's chin, Lt. Schrier called Nurse Barbara Rogers, who was on duty at the time of the incident. She examined Mr. Wroble and observed a gaping laceration under his chin with the fatty tissue exposed. The wound was bleeding profusely. Nurse Rogers wanted to send Mr. Wroble to the hospital to have the wound sutured, but he refused treatment. Nurse Rogers was of the opinion that the wound she observed was consistent with blunt trauma. Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Mr. Wroble. Although Respondent was justified in being concerned about Mr. Wroble's risk of spitting on the officers, gear, such as helmets or masks, was available to prevent such conduct. The manner in which Respondent escorted Mr. Wroble from the holding cell to the elevator, especially the grabbing of his hair, was not justified. The fact that Mr. Wroble was making verbal threats of physical action does not justify the manner in which Mr. Wroble was escorted by Respondent from the holding cell to the elevator. Because of his level of intoxication, Mr. Wroble had difficulty walking, but he posed little threat of physical harm to Respondent or the other officers. Less restraint, such as having an officer on either side of Mr. Wroble to prevent him from falling or attempting to resist, should have been employed. There was a dispute as to how Mr. Wroble received the laceration to his chin. Respondent contends that he does not know how the injury occurred, but that he did not cause it. Petitioner contends that the circumstantial evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Wroble received the injury as a result of being shoved onto the elevator by Respondent and coming in contact with the rear of the elevator. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Wroble received the injury when his chin struck the rear of the elevator after he was shoved onto the elevator by Respondent. COUNT III On September 1, 1989, Respondent issued two drafts on his personal credit union account to King Motor Company as part of a down payment for the purchase of a truck. Draft #181 in the amount of $500.00 was tendered first. After financing was arranged, it was determined that Respondent would have to pay an additional sum of $200.00, making the total down payment $700.00. The balance of the down payment was paid on September 1, 1989, by Respondent's draft #182 in the amount of $200.00. Both drafts were drawn on an account for which Respondent was the sole signatory. Following the tender of the down payment, Respondent took possession of the truck. Respondent's draft #181 was dishonored because the account had insufficient funds to honor the draft. Respondent's draft #182 was honored. Respondent's account did not have sufficient funds to pay draft #181 until September 8, 1989. When he wrote the two drafts to King Motors, the balance in Respondent's account was $39.48. (A deposit in the amount of $490.00 on September 6, 1989, provided the funds necessary to honor draft #182.) Respondent explained that the salesman at King Motor Company had agreed to hold check #181 for ten days to give Respondent time to make a deposit into his account. The manager of King Motor Company testified that such an agreement would have been against company policy and that he was unaware of any agreement to hold the check. The salesman with whom Respondent dealt was not called as a witness at this proceeding, and there was no documentary evidence as to this collateral agreement. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent has failed to prove his assertion that there was an oral contract that changed the term of his written agreement with King Motor Company. After making several unsuccessful efforts to contact Respondent, King Motor Company filed a complaint against Respondent with the City of Sunrise Police Department. Detective Ray Meinberg of the City of Sunrise Police Department contacted Respondent on or about December 26, 1989, and advised him that he was conducting an investigation of the complaint. Respondent advised Detective Meinberg that he would make restitution within two weeks. Detective Meinberg advised that he would proceed with the investigation. Restitution was not made before Det. Meinberg completed his investigation. Arrest documents were prepared and Respondent was arrested on felony charges. On January 3, 1990, (the receipt by King Motors was erroneously dated 1-3-89) Respondent made restitution to King Motor Company, and the criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. Respondent's employment with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department was terminated because of the worthless bank check charge, and there was no evidence that Respondent has worked as a law enforcement officer since his termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enters a Final Order which adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which revokes Certificate Number 3-86-502-09 issued to Respondent on February 26, 1987. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7255 The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, and 76 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first and third sentences of paragraph 21 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second and fourth sentences of paragraph 21 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 22, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, and 75 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 45, 47, 51, and 54 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Somers, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement 7265 N.W. 25th Street Miami, Florida 33122 Larry Bowen 4076 Sierra Terrace Sunrise, Florida 33351 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards & Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
