The Issue Does Petitioner, Captain Ronald G. Beermunder, have standing to bring this action? Does the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) have jurisdiction over this matter? Do the 2008 Firearms Instructor's Training Manual and the 2011 Certificate of Firearms Proficiency for Statewide Firearm License constitute agency statements that amount to a rule as defined in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2014)?1/ If so, has the Division adopted the statements through the chapter 120 rulemaking procedure?
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Division licenses and regulates private investigative, security, and repossession services in Florida. §§ 493.6100 and 493.6101, Fla. Stat. Some Division licensees may bear firearms in the course of regulated activities. § 493.6115(2), Fla. Stat. A licensee who bears a firearm must also possess a Class "G" license. § 493.6115(2), Fla. Stat. An applicant for a Class "G" license must satisfy minimum training criteria for firearms established by statute and rule of the Department. The criteria include 28 hours of range and classroom training taught and administered by a Class "K" licensee. § 493.6105(5), Fla. Stat. Additionally, each Class "G" licensee must submit proof annually that he or she has received a minimum of four hours of firearms recertification training, also taught by a Class "K" licensee during each year of the license period. § 493.6113(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Captain Beermunder has been a licensed Class "K" firearms instructor since 2009. A Brief History of the Manual, the Certificate, and Rules Over the years, the Division has prepared various versions of a Firearms Instructor's Training Manual for Class "K" instructors to use when teaching Class "G" students. The Division has also prepared various versions of a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency for Statewide Firearm License for use by Class "K" instructors to certify a Class "G" student's completion of training. In 1996, the Division, housed, at the time, at the Secretary of State, incorporated the existing versions of the manual and the certificate in Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C-3.1000(6), now rule 5N-1.100. Over the following years, the Division prepared and relied upon various updated versions of the manual and the certificate, including the 2008 version of the Manual and the 2011 Certificate. It did not adopt these versions by reference in a rule. In the euphemistic words of Mr. Wilkinson, the assistant director of the Division, who took that position in 20113/: "Well, I have to acknowledge that my predecessors were not observant in their duties to update manuals and go through the proper rulemaking process." In 2014, after Captain Beermunder began his challenges to use of the 2008 Manual and the 2011 Certificate, the Department amended rule 5N-1.134. The amendment incorporated revised versions of the manual and the certificate as permitted by section 120.54(1)(h). The rule, as amended, became effective May 21, 2014. The Division stopped relying on the 2008 Manual on May 21, 2014, upon adoption of the 2014 version. On May 20, 2014, the Division sent all Class "K" instructors an "Important Notice," along with a compact disc (CD) containing an electronic version of the 2014 Firearms Instructor's Training Manual. The notice informed instructors of the changes to the 2008 Manual and that a supply of revised 2011 Certificates would be forwarded in June 2014. On June 25, 2014, the Division issued another "Important Notice" to Class "K" instructors, along with a supply of the newly adopted 2014 Certificates. It sent a second CD because the one sent in May contained typographical errors. The "Important Notice" informed Class "K" instructors that they could continue using the 2011 Certificate until their stock of certificates ran out. If an applicant submitted the 2011 Certificate, the Division would accept it. New Criminal Statute in 2013 and Investigation of Beermunder The Legislature amended section 493.6120, Florida Statutes (2012), in 2013 to make it a third-degree felony to knowingly possess, issue, sell, submit, or offer "a fraudulent training certificate, proficiency form, or other official document that declares an applicant to have successfully completed any course of training required for licensure under this chapter." § 493.6120(5), Fla. Stat.; Ch. 2013-251, § 6, Laws of Fla. The Division began investigating several Class "K" instructors, including Captain Beermunder, for violation of the new statute. The Division turned the investigation of Captain Beermunder over to the Department of Agriculture Law Enforcement unit. Investigator Padgett issued a probable cause statement that led to the State Attorney of Santa Rosa County charging Captain Beermunder with multiple felony violations. During the Department's investigation and determination of probable cause, the Division relied upon the 2008 Manual and the 2011 Certificate, neither of which were ever adopted as rules. Before this rule challenge hearing, Captain Beermunder entered a no contest plea to nine felony counts of issuing fraudulent certificates, reserving the right to appeal the ruling on a motion in limine raising an issue of whether charges relied upon an unpromulgated rule. The Division is acting against Captain Beermunder's license on the basis of his no contest plea. The nine counts of amended information that Captain Beermunder pled no contest to in criminal case no. 13001343CFMXAX charged him, using identical language except for the differing names of the applicants and different dates in 2013, with issuing a Certificate of Proficiency for the Security Officer G-License applicants when he "knew or reasonably should have known that the certificate, form, or document was fraudulent in violation of Sections 493.6120(7) and 493.6105(5), Florida Statutes." Section 493.6105(5) states among other things: In addition to the requirements outlined in subsection (3), an applicant for a Class "G" license must satisfy minimum training criteria for firearms established by rule of the department, which training criteria includes, but is not limited to, 28 hours of range and classroom training taught and administered by a Class "K" licensee; however, no more than 8 hours of such training shall consist of range training. Every one of the charges to which Captain Beermunder pled no contest were based upon issuing certificates of firearms proficiency fraudulently stating that the applicant had completed 28 hours of training. The Legislature established the requirement for 28 hours of training in 1997 when chapter 97-248, section 3, Laws of Florida, amended section 493.6105, Florida Statutes (1996), to raise the hours of training requirement to 28. The requirement has been in effect ever since. It was in effect when Captain Beermunder was first licensed in 2009.
The Issue Whether on or about November 28, 1993, Petitioner committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of himself or another and was sufficient grounds for denial of Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer and Class "G" Statewide Firearm Licenses, pursuant to Sections 493.6118(1)(j) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact By application dated February 10, 1994, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a Class "D" Security Officer license and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license. The applications prepared by Petitioner were complete, and included the required photos and copy of a certificate evidencing successful completion of security officer training as required by statute. On November 28, 1993, the Petitioner met his estranged spouse in the Lakeland police station lobby to exchange custody of their baby daughter. This transfer of custody was videotaped, allegedly by the Petitioner's mother-in-law. As the transfer was ending, the Petitioner became agitated at the person holding the camera. Petitioner picked up the baby car seat and moved towards the camera. The Petitioner swung the baby car seat, while the baby was in it, in the direction of the camera. No competent evidence was produced which proved that the car seat, while being swung by Petitioner, struck another person or an object held by another person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officers license and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license as provided for in Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes (1993). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner is eligible for licensure under either stand Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent proposed finding of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (in part). Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of competent (non-hearsay) evidence: paragraphs 6 (in part), 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel E. Figueroa 5331 David Street Lakeland, Florida 33813 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (Respondent) should approve the application filed by Thoroughbred Development, Inc., and Rodney Dessberg (Petitioners) to permit an existing sign under the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2012).1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with regulation and permitting of certain outdoor advertising signs placed on specified highways. The Petitioners are the applicants for a sign permit, application number 58806/58807. The Petitioners own the sign and the property upon which the sign is located. The sign and property are located on U.S. 41, a federal aid primary highway designated in 2003 as a "Scenic Highway." The relevant portion of U.S. 41 is also referred to as the Tamiami Trail. The sign at issue in this proceeding (the "1964 sign") was erected in 1964 by owner Blue Heron fruit shippers. The sign has remained unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location since installation. The 1964 sign was built on a parcel of land (the "sign parcel") located at 7450 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. A small commercial building also occupied the parcel. The location is within an unincorporated part of Manatee County. The sign parcel has been zoned for commercial use since the erection of the sign in 1964. The sign is not located on state right-of-way and is not a safety hazard. When the 1964 sign was erected, it was used to promote the Blue Heron fruit shipping business located on an adjacent parcel at 7440 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida (the "Blue Heron parcel"). At all times material to this case, the two parcels have had separate legal descriptions. The parcels have separate driveway connections to Tamiami Trail. For reasons unknown, the addresses of the parcels were changed at some point, but the legal descriptions of the parcels have not been amended. Although the parcels were presumably commonly owned or leased by the Blue Heron fruit business at the time the 1964 sign was erected, the parcels were independently sold and owned individually by separate purchasers. The sign parcel is currently designated as 7851 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. The commercial building remains on the property. The Blue Heron parcel is currently designated as 7849 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. In October 1976, Kerry and Jane Kirschner purchased the Blue Heron parcel and the fruit business thereon. The Kirschners continued to operate the fruit business. The sign parcel was owned by another individual. Although there was no written agreement between the Kirschners and the owner of the sign parcel, Mr. Kirschner testified at the hearing that he made a monthly payment to the owner of the sign parcel so that he could continue using the sign to promote the fruit business. It is reasonable to presume that the monthly payment was based upon an agreement between the two owners. It would be unreasonable to assume that the payment was a gift from Mr. Kirschner to the owner of the sign parcel. In January 1978, the Kirschners purchased the sign parcel from the owner to whom Mr. Kirschner had been paying rent. Mr. Kirschner testified that the Kirschners bought the sign parcel to obtain the commercial building and to continue using the 1964 sign to promote the fruit business. In October 1978, "Florida Outdoor, Inc." filed an application for a two-sided sign (the "1978 sign") located on Tamiami Trail, 444 feet to the north of the 1964 sign. A sign permit application must identify the location of regulated signs located nearby the site of the proposed sign. Because the 1964 sign appeared to advertise an on-premises business and was therefore not subject to regulation, the applicant did not reference the 1964 sign. The Respondent approved the application and issued a permit (tag number AW881/AW882) to the applicant. In November 1979, "Florida Outdoor, Inc." filed an application for a two-sided sign (the "1979 sign") located on Tamiami Trail, 150 feet to the south of the 1964 sign. Again, the applicant did not reference the 1964 sign. The Respondent approved the application and issued a permit (tag number AW698/AW699) to the applicant. Both the 1978 and 1979 signs remain at their permitted locations. The Kirschners never combined the two parcels. They sold the Blue Heron parcel in 1986 and sold the sign parcel in 1993. The Notice of Violation dated January 31, 2012, was the first violation ever issued by the Respondent regarding the 1964 sign. At the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that, had the 1964 sign not been considered exempted from regulation as an "on premises" sign, it could have been permitted prior to the installation of the 1978 and 1979 signs. Following the installation of the 1978 and 1979 signs, the 1964 sign could not have been permitted (absent the "grandfather" provision) due to sign spacing regulations not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting the application for the sign permit referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and/or Class "G" Statewide Firearm License should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about June 7, 1989, Respondent filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License with the Department. The application form asked the applicant whether he had ever been arrested and to list any and all arrests. The application specifically provided that "falsification of this question may be grounds for denial of your license." Respondent answered affirmatively that he had been arrested. The only specific incident listed on the application was an arrest in 1979 for a charge of "asault [sic] with a deadly weapon intemp [sic] to kill Fay N.C. [sic]." The Application also required the applicant to set forth the outcome of all arrests. Respondent replied that the "charges was [sic] drop [sic]." On or about July 17, 1990, Respondent submitted an application with the Department for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. The application form for this license included an identical request regarding prior arrests. In response, Respondent checked the box indicating he had never been arrested and wrote "N/A" where he was supposed to indicate the date, charge and outcome of the arrests. Respondent has not provided any explanation for why his Class "D" Application disclosed an arrest in 1979, but his Class "G" Application did not reference this arrest. This discrepancy is not alleged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has submitted a certificate from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court which indicates that a criminal summons was issued for "Angelo Louis Lugo" on or about May 5, 1987, for a charge of "M Assault By Pointing A Gun." It is not clear whether this summons is directed at Respondent nor is it clear whether the Summons was ever served and/or the subject was arrested. The ultimate disposition of this criminal case is not clear. Respondent denies ever being served with the summons referenced in this court record. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was ever arrested in connection with this matter. Petitioner has submitted a second certified record from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court, which indicates that Respondent was issued a "Citation" on March 10, 1986, for the charge of "M Shoplifting Concealment Goods." No other evidence or explanation of this record has been provided. Respondent admits that he was issued a Notice to Appear in court after he was caught by store security personnel taking aspirin from a bottle. He testified that he did not list this matter on his applications because he was not "arrested." Instead, he claims that he was merely issued a citation to appear in court. The evidence presented in this case did not refute Respondent's version of the events surrounding this court record. In sum, the evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever formally "arrested" for this incident. The ultimate disposition of this criminal charge is not clear from the record in this proceeding. Counts III and IV of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint are based upon an incident that occurred on February 9, 1993 between Respondent and Jorge Ruiz. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence regarding this incident. Both Respondent and Ruiz have testified and/or given statements on several occasions about the incident including statements to the police, testimony in a related criminal proceeding against Respondent and depositions taken in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by Ruiz against Respondent, Respondent's employer and the Bank where Respondent worked. It is impossible and unnecessary to resolve all of the conflicts in the differing accounts of the incident as described by Respondent and Ruiz at various times. After considering all of the evidence presented, including the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the findings in this Recommended Order are based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented. On February 9, 1993, Respondent was working as an armed security guard at a Barnett Bank in Plantation, Florida. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Respondent was working outside the bank in the vicinity of the drive-thru lanes. He was there to direct traffic and monitor the area. Around this time, Jorge Ruiz pulled into the paved area in front of the drive-thru booths. Ruiz had been to the Bank on numerous occasions in the past and he had often used the drive-thru windows. Ruiz has a very powerful radio in his pick-up truck and he admits that he tends to play music at a loud volume. On at least one prior occasion, Ruiz had proceeded to the drive-thru station with his radio blasting. The tellers had complained about the noise coming through the intercom system. During the week or so prior to February 9, 1993, Ruiz and Respondent had at least one minor confrontation. During this prior instance, Respondent advised Ruiz that he had to turn his radio down before he reached the drive-thru booth because the intercom system picked up the background noise and it interfered with the tellers' ability to communicate with the customers. Ruiz replied that he would turn down the radio when he got to the window. When Ruiz entered the Bank's parking lot on February 9, 1993, his radio was playing loudly. Respondent approached the driver's side window of Ruiz' vehicle and asked Ruiz to turn his radio down. Ruiz responded with a number of obscenities. Respondent told Ruiz that unless he turned his radio down, he could not use the drive-thru facility. Ruiz refused to comply. Respondent stood in front of Ruiz' vehicle and directed him away from the drive-thru lane. Ruiz' vehicle moved forward and bumped into Respondent. Respondent drew his gun and shouted at Ruiz to stop the car and get out. Respondent claims that he intended to hold Ruiz while he called the police. The parties exchanged words and Ruiz' truck again moved forward striking Respondent. Respondent was not knocked down or otherwise injured, however, his gun discharged. The bullet penetrated the windshield of Ruiz' truck and hit the steering wheel. A fragment from the steering wheel struck Ruiz in the neck or chest area, causing a minor wound. Respondent contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon and/or using deadly force "to prevent the escape from custody of a person who committed a felony in his presence." This contention is rejected because there is no evidence that Ruiz was attempting to escape. Furthermore, it is not clear that Ruiz in fact committed a felony, nor does it appear that the use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances of this case. Respondent also contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon in self-defense because he was being threatened by a deadly weapon, i.e. Ruiz' truck, and he had no reasonable means of escape. Respondent claims that he was boxed in by a vehicle in front of the truck and had no reasonable way to retreat from the "deadly force" that confronted him. Respondent's contention that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected as not credible. Contrary to Respondent's claim, the evidence was clear that Respondent had reasonable means of escape. Moreover, there were alternate ways to handle the situation which would have diffused rather than exacerbated the tension and danger. Respondent claims that the gun discharged accidently when the truck hit him. No persuasive evidence was presented to refute this contention. Indeed, in some of his statements, Ruiz admitted that the gun may have gone off by accident when his truck struck Respondent. In sum, it is clear that Ruiz was belligerent and abusive and that his car bumped into Respondent twice. Nonetheless, Respondent's contention that he was justified in drawing his weapon and that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected. While it can not be concluded from the evidence presented that Respondent deliberately shot at Ruiz, the evidence did establish that Respondent was guilty of negligence, misconduct and/or incompetency when he drew and pointed his loaded weapon at Ruiz. The circumstances did not justify Respondent pointing a loaded weapon at Ruiz. Without question, Respondent failed to demonstrate that level of discretion and caution that is expected of a person licensed to carry a firearm in the course of his employment. After the gun went off, Respondent immediately jumped into the truck and took Ruiz to a nearby hospital where Ruiz' minor injury was treated and he was released.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent and finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Count IV of that Third Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, Respondent should be fined $1,500.00, his Class "G" Firearms License should be revoked and his Class "D" Security Guard License should be placed on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 28th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2566 Petitioner has not submitted any proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed recommended order included a section entitled Findings of Fact. However, that section does not include any individually numbered proposed findings of fact and the paragraphs contained in this section of Respondent's proposal include a mixture factual assertions, argument and legal conclusions. The proposal has been fully reviewed and considered. However, because proposed findings of fact have not been separately identified, no rulings are made with respect to Respondent's proposal. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 James S. Benjamin, Esquire Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A. 100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., has held a Class "s" security guard agency license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Rollins Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Linda Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Linda and Rollins Donald have been the principal owners, corporate officers, and directors of Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., and as such are responsible for the control and operation of the agency. There is no licensed manager for the agency. At all times material hereto, Raymond Curtis Foxwood was an employee of North Dade Security, Ltd. Foxwood has never been licensed as a firearms instructor. An applicant for a statewide gun permit, also known as a Class "G" armed guard license, must submit to Petitioner an application for such license. The application form contains a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency which verifies that the applicant has received the statutorily-required firearms training by a licensed firarms instructor prior to the filing of that application for licensure.- on October 7, 1985, Foxwood submitted to Petitioner on behalf of North Dade Security, Ltd., approximately 20 applications for licensure as unarmed and armed guards. Although Foxwood was advised at that time by one of Petitioner's employees that the applications could not be processed due to the absence of licensure fees and due to deficiencies in completeness, the applicants were sent by North Dade Security to Petitioner's office to pick up their temporary licenses on the morning of October 8. When questioned about their applications, some of the applicants advised Petitioner's employee that they had received no firearms training, although their applications certified that they had. After the applicants were refused temporary licenses by Petitioner, North Dade Security sent the applicants to a gun range where Foxwood administered some firearms training for approximately four hours. Neither Rollins Donald nor Linda Donald was present at that training session. As of October 1985, several other persons employed by North Dade Security as armed guards had received no firearms training in conjunction with that employment. Most of the Certificates of Firearms Proficiency a contained within the applications of those latter employees and of the October 7 applicants were signed by Rollins Donald and by Linda Donald. 11. The numerous applications submitted by North Dadee La Security, Ltd., on October 7, 1985 was occasioned by a large contract entered into by North Dade Security, Ltd. requiring the immediate employment of a large number of armed guards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents North Dade Security, Ltd., Rollins Donald and Linda Donald guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and revoking the Class "B.' license of North Dade Security, Ltd., and further revoking the Class "K" firearms instructor licenses of Respondents Rollins Donald and Linda Donald. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee' Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Room LL-10 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0250 Jackie L. Gabe, Esquire Charles C. Mays, Esquire McCRARY & VALENTINE Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The testimony at the final hearing in this cause was preserved by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by use of the court reporter. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Respondents determined that they would provide a transcript of proceedings for use by the undersigned and would therefore have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded thirty (30) days from the filing of that transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23, 1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties hereto subsequently agreed that that transcript was incomplete, and a complete transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1986. Accordingly, the parties' proposed recommended orders became due to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than October 22, 1986. Respondents filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986. However, Petitioner did. not file its proposed recommended order until October 23, 1986. On October 24, 1986, Petitioner also filed what it considered to be an uncertified "corrected transcript. A series of correspondence and conference calls then ensued due to the Respondents' inability to accept the "corrected~ transcript, and the parties were afforded additional time in which to resolve their differences regarding the September 22, 1986 transcript, which was determined by the undersigned to be the official transcript of this proceeding. By correspondence from Petitioner's substituted attorney filed on February 2, 1987, Petitioner withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to the use of the official transcript filed on September 22, 1986. Since Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed late and no extension of time for the filing of that proposed recommended order was requested or granted, no rulings are made herein on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Although Respondents' proposed recommended order was timely filed, only Respondent's finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Respondents' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony of each witness. ================================================================= FIRST DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NORTH DADE SECURITY LTD. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES CORPORATION, LINDA H. TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DONALD and ROLLINS DONALD, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 97-1350 DOAH CASE NO. 85-4192 Vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 1, 1988. An appeal from an order of the Department of State. Michael J. Cherniga, of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard, C Tallahassee, for appellants. R. Timothy Jansen, Assistant General Counsel, Department of State, Tallahassee, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judgee. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of State (Department) approving and adopting the hearing officer's recommended order holding that the firearms instructor licenses of the individual appellants should be revoked and that the security agency license of the corporate appellant should be revoked. We reverse and remand. The appellants raise, inter alia, the following two questions: (1) Whether the Department's failure to accurately and completely preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of appellants' due process rights, and (2) whether the Department's failure to preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing has materially prejudiced the appellants' rights to judicial review of this cause. At the final hearing in this case the Department attempted to preserve the testimony presented by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by the use of a court reporter. The Department notified appellants prior to the final hearing that it intended to preserve the hearing testimony in this manner, and that appellants would be responsible for furnishing any transcript they might need for review of the hearing officer's findings. Appellants were advised they were free to either hire a court reporter to produce such transcript or that they could use the Department's tapes t make their own transcript. Appellants neither hired a court reporter nor objected to the Department's announcement that it would tape record the proceedings. Unfortunately, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and numerous substantial and material portions of the testimony taken at the hearing were not transcribable because they were not recorded at all, or because the tapes were inaudible or unintelligible. The final hearing was concluded February 18, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants determined that they would provide a transcript of the proceedings for use by the parties and would have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded 30 days from the filing of the transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23,1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) but the parties subsequently agreed that the transcript was incomplete. An allegedly complete transcript was filed with DOAH on September 22, 1986, and the parties' proposed recommended orders were due to be filed no later than October 22, 1986. Appellants filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986 and the Department filed its recommended order October 23, 1986 together with what it labeled a "corrected" transcript. The appellants refused to accept the "corrected" transcript and the parties were afforded additional time to resolve their differences regarding the September 22 transcript. Ultimately, the transcript filed September 22 was determined by the hearing officer to be the official transcript of the final hearing. On February 2, 1987, the Department withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to use the transcript filed September 22, 1986. The hearing officer's recommended order was entered February 25, 1987, and the final order of the agency was entered September 23, 1987, more than one and one-half years after the date of the final hearing. Section 120.57(1)(b)6, Fla. Stat. (1985) provides in part: The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost. The statute requires agencies to accurately and completely preserve all testimony in §120.57(1) proceedings held before them, and this mandatory duty cannot be avoided or escaped by simply advising an opposing party that the agency proposes to preserve the testimony by tape recording and that the opposing party has the right to hire a court reporter. The appellants were entitled to rely upon the Department to accurately and completely preserve the testimony taken at the final hearing, yet review of the transcript herein reveals that the Department failed to perform its duty. There are numerous obvious omissions of substantial and material portions of the testimony received, and the answers to many of the questions posed are incomplete or inaudible. Because of the condition of the record the appellants are unable to obtain any meaningful review of the proceedings. Booker Creek Preservation. Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) are not applicable, as these cases involved a factual situation where the appellant failed to furnish a written transcript although one could have and should have been obtained by the appellant. In this case the appellants made every effort to obtain a complete and accurate written transcript of the testimony but were unable to do so through no fault of their own. As the parties were unable to agree on a statement of the evidence, the appellants are entitled to a hearing de novo. The order of the Department is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo on the petition. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ ., CONCUR.
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 16, 1975, Castlewood International Corporation, a licensed vendor and/or its agent, servant or employee, to wit: Brent Hanry Hansell, did permit and/or allow a person, Johnny Pannell, under the age of 18, to consume alcoholic beverages on its licensed premises, contrary to Florida Statute 562.11(1).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner presented its case based upon certain oral testimony offered in the course of the hearing and certain tangible items of evidence offered at the hearing. Before placing any witnesses on the stand, certain stipulation were entered into the record between the parties. The first such stipulation was to the effect that no violations of the sort alleged in the administrative complaint had been committed by the Respondent in any of the six facilities which it had in the Division of Beverage District Five area, in the two years proceeding the date of the hearing. It was also stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which was a drinking glass, allegedly taken from Johnny Pannell on or about August 16, 1975, while Johnny Pannell was in Big Daddy's number 53, which contained a chemical substance which had as a part alcohol, and that the chain of custody of the glass and contents while in the care of the Division of Beverage Authority and their affiliates remained inviolate, up to and including the date of the hearing. It was further stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which is a copy of a license issued for 1975-76 could be admitted into evidence without objection. Further stipulations included an agreement that the Respondent had been duly served with a notice to show cause and attendant administrative complaint, and that the Respondent was duly noticed of the hearing date for January 22, 1976. The Petitioner called as its first witness, James Lee Yeager, Jr., an agent for the Division of Beverage. On August 15, 1975, the officer met with a group of other officers for purposes of going to check bars in the Kissimmee area for possible violation of the beverage laws, specifically the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. At around 12:30 A.M. August 16, 1975, the witness entered the premises of the Respondent and momentarily observed the patrons. He indicated that there were 75 to 100 customers in the bar. He then returned outside and met with the other officers, and together they reentered the bar for purposes of checking identifications of select patrons. On both occasions when the witness entered the bar, he indicated that there was a white female taking cover charge money but that she never asked for any identification. While in the bar, the witness approached one white male, later identified as Johnny Pannell. When requested to produce some identification, Pannell produced an identification card which has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. This identification card is a photo I.D. with the word Identification affixed and the back of the card has finger prints together with a notary seal. It is noted that the notary has certified the signature, photo and thumb prints; however, the date of birth is not notarized. It was later established through the witness, Johnny Pannell, that the matters set forth on the card, with the exception of the age were correct. Officer Yeager indicated that when Johnny Pannell was approached that Pannell had in his hand the glass, which has been stipulated to at the commencement of this hearing as to the chain of custody and as to the contents. When the officer asked for further identification, Pannell produced a drivers license which showed that Pannell was 17 years of age on August 16, 1975. Pannell was therefore placed under arrest for an offense of drinking under age. Officer Cruz, Division of Beverage, took the stand and indicated that he assisted Officer Yeager in the interrogation of Johnny Pannell, while in the Respondent's premises. The witness recalls that Pannell admitted being 17. Officer Cruz also agreed with officer Yeager, in that he did not see the lady at the door check any identification when the officers entered. One additional observation solicited in the course of Officer Cruz's testimony, was to the effect that the premises were dark in the main part of the bar. Agent Perry Lee Lyle of the Division of Beverage, took the stand and testified that he was involved in the identification check in the bar. He further testified that he arrested Brent Hanry Hansell for permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. Johnny Pannell took the stand for the Petitioner and testified that he was 17 years old, born September 13, 1958. When he entered the bar, according to the witness, the lady asked him for identification and he showed her Petitioner's Exhibit 2. He had purchased this bogus identification card in Orlando, for a price of $5.00, and had used it 5 or 6 times before the night of August 16, 1975. When the officers entered the bar and approached him, he had a drink in his hand and that drink has been identified as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. When Officer Yeager asked him for further identification the witness said that he did not volunteer that identification but that Officer Yeager found a drivers license which showed the witness to be 17 years of age. One final observation by the witness, was to the effect that he never told the officers that he was under 18 years of age. At the close of the Petitioner's case the Respondent's attorney moved to dismiss the case because the Petitioner had failed to prove that the premises as existing on August 16, 1975, was a premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Therefore, according to the Respondent, there could be no proof of the consumption of alcoholic beverages on a licensed premises. This motion will be subsequently considered in the findings of fact in the section of this recommended order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent presented a case in chief, notwithstanding its motion to dismiss, because the possibility existed that the motion would not be accepted by the undersigned and/or the Director. The first witness was Enid Marie Hunt. Miss Hunt was working on the door on August 16, 1975, and was the lady that the officers observed in making their entry. Additionally, she was the door checker when Johnny Pannell entered the bar that evening. She recalls checking the identification of Johnny Pannell, specifically the Petitioner's Exhibit 2. She did not ask for further identification although a sign in the foyer indicated that this was a policy of the Respondent to check two identifications. Some of the comments by the witness about policy matters relating to identifications, were to the effect that they look for identification cards with pictures; however, it was not their policy to accept cards with the initials I.D. or the words Identification Card. The witness further stated that she remembers the picture in the particular instance and the fingerprints and notary stamp and other matters reflected on the front side of the card, and found this to be satisfactory. She didn't have any explanation for accepting a card with the word Identification, nor did she think that the photo on the identification card made Johnny Pannell appear to be 18 years of age at the time the card was issued. Nevertheless, she said that she felt that he looked 18 years of age at the time he entered the bar on August 16, 1975. The witness had been working there only two nights, and apparently had not had an opportunity to familiarize herself with the written policy by the Respondent on the subject of identification checks. She did indicate, that Mr. Hansell had instructed her six times on how to check identification cards. Considerations suggested by Mr. Hansell, other than those mentioned before, were that you check identification on persons who appear to be 18 through 22 years old. You do not, as a practice, check those persons who appear to be older. The witness also seemed to suggest that the policy of checking two identifications could be disregarded if the first identification card appeared obviously legitimate. Brent Hanry Hansell who was the manager of Big Daddy's number 53, on the night in question and who is still acting in that capacity, took the stand. He testified that he instructed Miss Hunt that she could accept picture drivers license, a draft card, a voter registration card, and a military identification. He indicated that cards with the word Identification or the initials I.D., birth registration cards were types of identification that were not sufficient. He did seem to believe that the notary stamp attached a certain air of legality to an identification document. He stated that the manual issued by the Respondent to the employees of the Respondent sets out the identification procedures to be utilized. He did not testify that Miss Hunt had had an opportunity to read and familiarize herself with that manual. His comment about Miss Hunts training was to the effect that she was working there on the second night, though usually there is a week training period. In the defense of his position of allowing Miss Hunt to work on the second night, he stated that he had briefed her several times on the duties of an identification card checker. Robert E. Betz took the stand. Mr. Betz is the area supervisor for the Respondent and one of his functions is to assist in the hiring of identification checkers. He stated that the manual discusses those documents which would constitute a sufficient identification. In alluding to the sign found in the foyer of the subject premises, he said that the sign was primarily one designed to discourage under age persons from attempting to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages on the premises. As commented before, the motion to dismiss was made at the close of the Petitioner's presentation. An examination of the testimony offered by the Petitioner's witnesses, together with the tangible items of evidence would seem to support a finding of a violation on the part of the Respondent, were it not for the failure of one necessary element of proof. The element of proof not shown, is the affirmative proof that the premises in question was a premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, under the laws of the State of Florida. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1 does not show that a license was in existance on August 16, 1975, and the record is devoid of any other proof of that fact. Consequently, though the facts, as produced by the Petitioner, show that a sale of alcoholic beverages was made to Johnny Pannell, a minor, and that the identification card would not have been accepted by a proprietor using due diligence and that the acceptance has not been effectively defended against in the Respondent's case in chief, the Petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case or to establish a violation by the standard of proof necessary in this cause.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Castlewood International Corporation, t/a Big Daddy's number 53, be released from further prosecution for the matters set forth in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart McHenry, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 120 North Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times materal to this proceeding, the Respondent, Robert G. Hammond, was the holder of Beverage License No. 64-183, Series No. 2-APE. That license is issued to the licensed premises located at 1000 Reid Street, Palatka, Florida. On September 23, 1983, the Respondent, Robert G. Hammond entered a plea of guilty to the charge of fraud under Florida Statute 409.325(2). Based upon that guilty plea, the Respondent was sentenced to six months confinement in the Putnam County Jail and five years probation under certain specified conditions of probation. The offense to which the Respondent pleaded guilty and for which he was adjudicated guilty has a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine and is a felony of the third degree under Florida law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the charge as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and revoking Respondent's Beverage License No. 64-183. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Hammond 1000 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32077 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a concealed weapon or firearm license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 1989, petitioner, Angel Cordero (Cordero) filed an application with respondent, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department), for a concealed weapon or firearm license. Accompanying such application was Cordero's fingerprint card and a certificate of completion of the required safety course for a concealed weapon permit. By letter dated July 19, 1989, the Department informed Cordero that it had received criminal justice information which indicated that he had been convicted of a felony, and that before processing his application further he would have to submit proof he had not been convicted of a felony or that his civil rights and firearm rights had been restored. The letter further advised Cordero that failure to submit the necessary documentation within thirty days would result in the denial of his application. Following receipt of the Department's letter, Cordero wrote to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the agency from which the Department had received the adverse criminal justice information. In his letter, Cordero denied ever having been convicted of a felony, and requested that the FBI provide him with the proof or documentation necessary to reflect such fact. In response to Cordero's letter, the FBI sent a letter to the State of New York on August 16, 1989, which stated: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a communication questioning arrest data previously submitted by your agency, together with a copy of the subject's identification record, as it currently appears in our files. You are requested to verify or correct the challenged entry/entries submitted by your agency.... To date there has been no resolution of this request. 1/ On August 21, 1989, the Department, having failed to receive the information from Cordero requested in its letter of July 19, 1989, wrote Cordero and informed him that his application for a concealed weapon license had been denied. Included with the letter was an election of rights form which advised Cordero of his right to a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On September 20, 1989, Cordero filed a timely request for formal hearing with the Department, and denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At hearing, Cordero, whose testimony is credited, adamantly denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. Cordero did, however, candidly divulge that in 1968 he was convicted, as a minor, of misdemeanor possession of drugs, sentenced to one year of confinement, and was released from custody after having served 8 months of his sentence. Following his release, Cordero moved to Puerto Rico where he remained until 1973 when he returned to the United States. On December 20, 1971, while living in Puerto Rico, Cordero was married. To support its position that Cordero had been convicted of a felony, the Department introduced the criminal justice information it had received from the FBI. That document provided: Use of the following FBI record ... is REGULATED BY LAW. It is furnished FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and should ONLY BE USED FOR CONTRIBUTOR OF NAME AND ARRESTED OR CHARGE
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Cordero `s application for a concealed weapon or firearm license be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jean M. Duterne (Respondent), committed the violations alleged, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and licensing security officers within the State of Florida. See §§ 493.6101(1) and 493.6118, Fla. Stat. (2010). At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held Security Officer License D 2526539 (D-license) and Statewide Firearms License G 2800118 (G-license). Prior to being licensed, Petitioner went through security officer training. To that end, Petitioner has read and asserts he understands Chapter 493, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent was on-duty working as an armed security guard at the JMS Hotel (the hotel), located at 21601 32nd Street, South, St. Petersburg, Florida, on August 20, 2008. Respondent was involved in an incident in the hotel’s parking lot that resulted in police responding to the property. Respondent provided information to police at or near the time of the incident on August 20, 2008. On August 20, 2008, Respondent responded to a call to investigate a possible credit card theft in Room 166 of the hotel. When he presented at the room, Respondent observed a woman sitting in a car parked adjacent to the room and another woman loading items into the car. When Respondent attempted to speak to the woman inside the car, she started the engine and began to exit the property. At that time, Respondent reached into the vehicle and attempted to remove the key from the ignition. It was Respondent’s intention to detain the woman to determine what she was doing. Contrary to Respondent’s effort, the vehicle began to pull away, and Respondent hurriedly pulled himself from harm’s way and stepped back away from the vehicle. In the excitement of the moment, Respondent drew his 9 mm semi-automatic pistol and discharged it, in an effort to hit the tire of the exiting vehicle. Respondent did not hit the tire. It is unknown what, if anything, was struck by the bullet discharged. Respondent’s G-license expired on June 2, 2010. Respondent’s D-license is still valid. The course Respondent took to obtain the G-license required a 28-hour course taught by a state-licensed instructor. The course training includes a manual that contains scenarios for licensees to consider as examples of when one should retreat from potentially dangerous situations. Generally, licensees should avoid using deadly force (equivalent to discharging a firearm) whenever possible. Only under limited situations should a licensee discharge a weapon. To further explain and provide guidance for the use of deadly force, the manual sets forth the following examples: Situation #1 You are guarding a liquor store and are advised by a customer that there is an armed robbery in progress. You look around the corner and see a man rushing out the front door with a firearm in his hand. Instructor Discussion: Instead of immediately looking around the corner, call the police first. The suspect could turn around and see you as you look around the corner, thus increasing the probability of armed conflict. The man is running away from you and there is no threat of death or great bodily injury. Don’t shoot. Situation #2 You have been advised that a burglary has occurred at a warehouse you are guarding. The suspects were observed leaving the scene in a blue, 1972 Dodge. Later that night, while patrolling the grounds in a well- marked security vehicle, you observe the suspects’ vehicle traveling through the parking lot at a high rate of speed with the headlights off. You see a flash come from the driver’s side of the suspects’ vehicle and almost simultaneously the front windshield of your patrol car cracks. The suspect vehicle continues through the parking lot at a high rate of speed. Instructor Discussion: Don’t shoot. Record license number and description of vehicle and suspects if it is possible to do so from a covered position. Pursuit could result in serious injury to you or to innocent bystanders who may get in the way. Call for police as soon as possible. Respondent created the incident in this case by reaching into the vehicle. Had he used the methods outlined in the manual, Respondent would have responded to the room, contacted police with the information concerning the description of the car and its occupants, and followed up by determining whether a theft had occurred. Instead, by injecting himself into the car and attempting to remove the ignition key, Respondent could have easily been injured. Even so, such an injury would not have supported the discharge of Respondent’s weapon in a location where others could have been injured. This is especially true in light of the fact that the vehicle was pulling away from Respondent and not toward him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the renewal of Respondent’s G-license and placing Respondent’s D-license on probation with such additional terms as the Department might deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Thomas, Esquire 334 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Tracy Sumner, Esquire Division of Licensing Division of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2520 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Constance N. Crawford, Director Division of Licensing Division of Agriculture and Consumer Services Post Office Box 3168 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-3168
