The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner may terminate the continuing teaching contract of Respondent on the grounds that she has been guilty of misconduct in office, immorality, breach of contract, and other just causes for dismissal. Petitioner alleges that Respondent had in her possession two pipes for the purpose of smoking marijuana.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 37 year-old second-grade teacher. She has continuing contract status. She has taught continuously for 10 years in the Osceola County School District, until she was suspended in early January, 1992, as a result of the subject incident. At the time of her suspension, she was completing her third year at Ventura Elementary School, which has only been open for three years. She taught the prior five years at Boggy Creek Elementary School. Respondent has always had good relations with principals, fellow teachers, and parents. Her students stand out when they enter third grade. Respondent has a unique ability to maintain rapport and control in the classroom. She is an enthusiastic teacher who invests considerable energy in teaching. Respondent has enjoyed excellent evaluations. The most revealing indicator of her exceptional value as a teacher rests in the fact that other teachers with children entering second grade select Respondent much more frequently than they select the other second-grade teachers. Respondent has consistently produced students better prepared than their counterparts to meet the academic and social demands of third grade. Since being divorced several years ago, the center of Respondent's life has been teaching. About a year prior to the subject incident, Respondent met Richard Kenny. Mr. Kenny, who apparently lives out of town, shares Respondent's residence when he visits. On December 20, 1991, Mr. Kenny and Respondent invited four casual acquaintances over to Respondent's home for a barbecue. Respondent invited her guests to make themselves at home. At some point after the party began, Respondent and Mr. Kenny re-entered the house. Respondent smelled burning marijuana and, although she saw no one smoking it, immediately informed her guests that she would not tolerate the consumption of marijuana in her home. Offended, the guests left. The following day, Respondent and Mr. Kenny were cleaning the house. Winter break had already begun, and they were planning to drive to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Kenny's family. In the course of cleaning the living room, Respondent found two marijuana pipes that had been left by her guests the prior day. There was no more than trace amounts of marijuana residue in the pipes so, without considerable thought, Respondent took them into her bedroom and placed them on the dresser. It is unclear what Respondent intended to do with the pipes. Her focus at the moment was on completing a hurried housecleaning, so she and Mr. Kenny could get on the road and begin their vacation. She typically placed in her bedroom all misplaced items found during housecleaning. On the evening of December 21, Respondent and Mr. Kenny went out to eat. When they returned, Respondent changed and went to the utility room to turn on the water heater, which she turned off when unneeded in order to save money. She noticed that a window had been broken in the utility room in an apparent attempt to burglarize her home. Respondent called the police. A female sheriff's deputy arrived about five minutes before a male deputy arrived on the scene. The deputies, who are young and inexperienced, remained on the scene together. The male deputy arrived while Respondent was showing the female deputy the utility room, which was at the other end of the house from Respondent's bedroom. Because the house was in the male deputy's territory, he assumed the primary responsibility of investigating and filling out the police report. The male deputy and Mr. Kenny sat down in the living room to fill out the police report. Respondent went back to her bedroom to find a sweater and a lighter in order to smoke a cigarette. Unknown to her, the female deputy had followed her. Standing in the doorway, the deputy saw one of the pipes on the dresser. Returning to the living room, the deputies conferred momentarily about the pipes. The female deputy returned to the bedroom, seized the pipes, brought them out to the living room, and confronted Respondent with them. Respondent initially denied ownership of the pipes. In the course of questioning, Respondent became emotionally upset and, defying the instructions of the deputies, kept walking back into her bedroom. Exasperated, the male deputy, who is 21 years old and had been in law enforcement less than one year, handcuffed Respondent. He and possibly the female deputy expressed a concern, unfounded as it turned out, that Respondent might be returning to her bedroom to destroy evidence. Neither deputy could give credible testimony as to when Respondent was given her Miranda rights. In fact, she was advised of her rights as the handcuffs were applied. The details are unclear as to how an investigation of a house burglary transformed into the arrest of the homeowner without any criminal record for possession of drug paraphernalia in the form of two empty pipes (except for residue) commonly available in the Central Florida area. At some point prior to being handcuffed, Respondent "admitted" that the pipes were hers. But the admission was induced by what can be characterized as nothing less than a fraudulent inducement on the part of one or both deputes, who assured Respondent that if she admitted to ownership of the pipes, nothing would happen. Numerous material inconsistencies exist between the stories of the two deputies. Based on all of the circumstances, the State Attorney's office agreed that Respondent could enter a pretrial diversion program designed to leave Respondent without a criminal record. After being booked and obtaining release on bail, Respondent returned home in the early morning hours of December 22. She and Mr. Kenny proceeded to leave town on their trip. When she returned, Respondent learned that Petitioner had been advised of her arrest. On the second day of school following Winter break (car trouble had delayed Respondent's return by one day), Petitioner informed Respondent that she was suspended without pay due to the incident. Considerable evidence was produced at the hearing concerning a teacher's effectiveness following two versions of the subject facts. The first version is that Respondent possessed the pipes without any intent to smoke marijuana. This is the version adopted in the present case in which one or more guests had, without permission, lighted the pipes to consume marijuana, had been told to leave, and had left the pipes. There was no evidence that such innocent possession of the pipes, together with a subsequent arrest, would impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher, constitute immorality, jeopardize the welfare of Respondent's students, or establish other grounds for the cancellation of Respondent's contract. The second version is that Respondent possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. Petitioner has failed to establish such guilty possession. Even if Respondent had been guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana, Petitioner has failed to establish, absent any evidence suggesting that this would have been more than an isolated incident, that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be impaired, the welfare of her students would be compromised, or that prevailing community standards of morality would be violated. Petitioner has undertaken considerable efforts at eradicating drug abuse among students. Justifiably concerned that the subject incident could undermine these critically important efforts, Petitioner prudently decided to initiate a process that would trigger an administrative factfinding process in which both sides could present evidence for impartial consideration under principles of law. Not surprisingly, there is no uniformity of opinion as to Respondent's fitness as a teacher had been she been proved to have had guilty possession of the two pipes in an isolated incident. However, several critical facts emerge. First, Respondent is an outstanding teacher. There is no evidence that any aspect of her personal life has ever had an adverse bearing on her ability to teach. Second, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be unaffected, even if Respondent were found guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. Respondent has for many years maintained firm control of her classroom. There is no evidence that her effectiveness in this regard, especially given the tender age of her students, would be impaired if she were to return to the classroom, even after having been found guilty of possessing the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. The majority of parents and fellow teachers would not be troubled by Respondent's return to the classroom even if she had possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. To the contrary, with the exception of managerial-level school administrators, the evidence suggests that all components of the relevant community would want Respondent to be able to bring her considerable talents back to the classroom even if she had been guilty of possessing the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. The willingness of the parents and teachers to receive Respondent back in the classroom, even if she had been proved guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes in an isolated incident, is based in part upon the recognition of her unique talents working with students. The opinions of many teachers and parents are informed by a willingness to tolerate a considerable separation between a teacher's private and public lives. These persons focus on the work of the person rather than aspects of her personality or personal life when these latter factors do not impact her teaching. Parents and teachers offered a variety of explanations as to why Respondent should be allowed to return to the classroom, even if she were guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes. The most articulate explanation was offered by Elizabeth Williams, who had a daughter in Respondent's class during the 1991-92 schoolyear. She also has another daughter who will be in second grade in the 1993-94 schoolyear. Explaining why Ms. Williams would want her younger daughter to be taught by Respondent, even if she were guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes in an isolated incident, Ms. Williams first described her older daughter's reaction when Respondent was abruptly suspended in January. The daughter told her mother that she wanted to quit going to school. As a mother residing in the neighborhood served by Ventura Elementary School and a teacher at Ventura, Ms. Williams explained that second graders, unlike older students, are not thinking about drugs. Ms. Williams' attitude toward Respondent's return to the classroom, even if Respondent had possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident, reflects conservative values prevalent in the community. Describing herself as a member of a conservative Christian denomination, Ms. Williams, while rejecting a repetitive cycle of sinning followed by repentance, emphasizes the importance of forgiveness in an isolated incident. Expressing this core aspect of the community's moral code, Ms. Williams testified that she would welcome Respondent back to the classroom and send her younger daughter to Respondent's class as long as there was no evidence that the guilty possession was other than an isolated incident. The core community value of forgiveness was recently embraced by the administration in connection with a principal of another school in the district. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Respondent, the principal was convicted of the offense. Petitioner decided in his case to impose a two-week suspension without pay and other relatively minor sanctions. In part, the attitude of the administration, which is an important community with which Respondent must interact in order to be an effective teacher, appears to have been based on a misreading of the attitudes of other members of relevant communities, such as teachers and parents. For example, one representative of Petitioner identified several teachers by name as opponents to Respondent's return to the classroom. But when these persons were called as witnesses, they testified differently. In any event, there is no evidence that Respondent would have trouble working with any member of the administration if she were not found guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes. Even under the guilty-possession scenario, the weight of the evidence is that the administration is properly mindful of the vital need to protect students from the scourge of drug abuse, the support for Respondent from the parent and teaching communities, and the importance of maintaining exceptional teachers. After weighing these factors, even under the wrongful- possession hypothetical scenario, the evidence is that the administration would continue to work professionally with Respondent, despite in an isolated incident, as it has with the principal who was actually convicted of driving under the influence. Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondent was guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. The evidence shows that she came into possession of the pipes under innocent circumstances so that, notwithstanding her arrest, there is no question surrounding her moral fitness and effectiveness as a teacher or the welfare and safety of her students. Even if Petitioner had proved that Respondent possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident, Petitioner failed to prove that, under the circumstances of this case, her contract should be terminated. Even under this scenario, the evidence fails to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would have been impaired, she would have been guilty of immoral behavior or moral turpitude, or that the safety, health, or welfare of her students would have been imperilled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Osceola County enter a final order reinstating Lynn Epstein and awarding her full back pay for the time that she would normally have worked following her suspension. ENTERED this 27 day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Chris Colombo, Superintendent Osceola County School Board 817 Osceola Blvd. Kissimmee, FL 34744-4495 Andrew B. Thomas Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 N. Mills Ave. Orlando, FL 32803 Joseph Egan, Jr. Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of July, 1992.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license as a limited surety agent for violation of Section 648.45(2)(a) (e), and (k), Florida Statutes (2006)?
Findings Of Fact On January 6, 2003, DFS issued Respondent a series 2-34 limited surety agent (bail bond) license. That license remains valid. On May 3, 2006, in State of Florida vs. Vincent Lamone Addison, in the Circuit Court, 14th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Gulf County, Case No. 06-0107CF, Respondent was charged by information with: Count I, Possession with intent to sell/deliver within 1000 feet of place of worship or convenience business; Count II, Possession of marijuana in excess of 20 grams, offenses contrary to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2005), third degree felonies. In the same information, in Count III, it was charged that he did obstruct (an) officer without violence, a violation of Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2005), a first degree misdemeanor. On December 18, 2006, the assistant state attorney in Circuit Court Case No. 06-107CF, filed a Motion to Consolidate, asking that the Court enter an order consolidating the count for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, with the count related to possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana. On December 19, 2006, in Circuit Court Case No. 06- 107CF, a Plea, Waiver and Consent was signed by Respondent as defendant in that case, attested by his counsel and the assistant state attorney, and found by the Circuit Court Judge to be a plea freely and voluntarily made and sworn to and subscribed before the court and approved and accepted by the court related to possession of marijuana, a third degree felony with a statutory maximum imprisonment of five years. The plea was made upon the agreement that the adjudication be withheld, with service of three-years' probation, to terminate after 18 months if all conditions were complete and no violations of the probation had occurred. In addition, by order of the Circuit Court Judge, certain charges/costs/fees were imposed in Circuit Court Case No. 06-107CF. When Respondent executed his Plea, Waiver and Consent in Circuit Court Case No. 06-107CF, it reflected that the charge of "Obstruct officer without violence" had been stricken by line and initials provided, by what appears to be the defense counsel and the assistant state attorney in the case. In Circuit Court Case No. 06-107CF, as reflected in an order by the Circuit Court Judge referring to those proceedings, entered December 19, 2006, upon his appearance before the Court with representation, it indicates a plea of nolo contendere was entered. It pertained to Count I. On the form order, it refers to "Sales/Del/Poss/cannis-w/in-100Ft. Church 893.13(1)(a) 3F." Under that reference is found "Poss. Marijuana in Excess 20 grs. 893.13(6)(a) 3F". The numbers refer to Section 893.13(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and "3F" refers to third degree felony. In this order it was reflected that the adjudication of guilt was withheld, and that the defendant received three-years' probation, to terminate after 18 months upon satisfaction of conditions of probation. The court order refers to fees required by the court to satisfy its terms for accepting the plea. On December 21, 2006, in Circuit Court Case No. 06- 107CF, the Circuit Court Judge entered an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on probation. In this order it reflects entry of a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of "Possession of more than 20 grams, 3rd-Degree Felony," for which the Respondent received three years of probation. Other conditions of the probation were reflected in this order, to include the costs and fees imposed by the Court. On January 12, 2007, precisely the same order was entered by the Circuit Court Judge. In addition to the nolo contendere plea in Circuit Court Case No. 06-107CF, Respondent in his testimony at hearing in the present case, acknowledged that the drug offense took place in Port St. Joe, Florida. He was arrested on April 21, 2006. Respondent did not contest the charges because marijuana was found on the console of his car and some was in his front pocket. Respondent's understanding of his nolo contendere plea was that it was to possession of marijuana exceeding 20 grams. The amount was somewhere in the range of 118 to 120 grams. In the present case, Respondent through his testimony, explained that he had been diagnosed with lupus and that he smoked marijuana to help his body function while confronting his disease. Respondent is aware that possession of marijuana in Florida is illegal, even if intended for the purpose he had in mind to provide him relief from the pain of lupus. Respondent is not acting in the capacity of a bail bond agent at this time. That loss of income has had significant impact on his earning capacity. Mr. Tynalin Smiley, who resides in Port St. Joe where the Respondent lives, has known the Respondent from the time Respondent was born. They are good friends. Mr. Smiley belongs to the same church as Respondent. He visits in Respondent's home at times. He believes that Respondent is a respectable person in the community. Mr. Robert Humphrey, who resides in Dothan, Alabama, met Respondent in 1996 when Respondent did an internship from Troy State University. Mr. Humphrey and Respondent worked in the area of juvenile justice, going into schools and providing counseling to students. Over the years Mr. Humphrey has kept in contact with Respondent. Occasionally Mr. Humphrey and Respondent are together socially. They go out to dinner. Respondent has attended Mr. Humphrey's church. Mr. Humphrey looks upon himself as being a big brother to Respondent. Mr. Humphrey has observed that Respondent remains active in the Respondent's community. Mr. Humphrey believes that Respondent regrets his choice that led to the action against him, that involving the marijuana possession that has been discussed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered Respondent in violation of Section 648.45(2)(a), (e) and (k), Florida Statutes (2006) and revoking Respondent's limited surety agent (bail bond) license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gautier Kitchen, Esquire Gregg Marr, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Vincent Lamone Addition Post Office Box 483 Port St. Joe, Florida 32457 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Petitioner is subject to the sales tax imposed on controlled substances by s. 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate tax.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1989, a search and destroy team assembled in Sebring, Florida, to survey Highlands County for evidence of the growing or possession of illegal drugs. The survey team consisted of a helicopter, pilot and crew chief from the Florida National Guard; and the ground crew of representatives from the Highlands County Sheriff's Office, State Highway Patrol, Fish and Game Commission, Florida Law Enforcement Officers and federal agents. The search commenced in the southwest quadrant of Highlands County with the helicopter and trained spotters flying a search pattern so as to view from the air any illegal substances being grown. On one, if not the first, leg of the search pattern, the helicopter, flying at an altitude of 500 feet, passed over the property on which Petitioner lives; and one of the observers spotted what he identified as marijuana growing near one of the outbuildings on this property. The marijuana patch was circled for both spotters as well as the pilot and crew to better see the growing marijuana. The ground party was alerted by radio of the find. They proceeded to the location and entered onto the property. There they met Petitioner, proceeded to the area where the marijuana was growing, and cut down the marijuana plants. Some 171 cut plants were counted, wrapped in bundles of approximately 10 plants each, and loaded into the back of a pickup truck. The deputies asked Petitioner if he would unlock the building next to where the marijuana plants were growing and he, knowing they could get a search warrant if necessary, unlocked the door. Inside they found some lights obtained for the purpose of growing marijuana indoors and other material listed on Exhibit 3A, all of which were confiscated. Petitioner was placed under arrest and the marijuana and other property seized was taken to the sheriff's office. The vehicle carrying the marijuana was weighed before the marijuana was unloaded and again immediately following the unloading. The difference in the weight of the vehicle with and without the marijuana was 450 pounds. Subsequent thereto, someone from either the sheriff's office or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement advised the Department of Revenue Collections and Enforcement agent in Lakeland, Florida, and the Notice of Assessment was prepared and served on Petitioner. To establish the value of the marijuana seized, the agent preparing the assessment used information received from the FDLE that the average street price in the district in which the marijuana was seized was $600 per pound in 1989. The document containing this information was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 6 after testimony was presented that each year the FDLE directs its five regional offices to submit street prices for various illegal drugs sold on the streets during that year. Exhibit 6 shows the marijuana street price at $600 per pound in the Tampa district (which includes Highlands County) as of June 7, 1989. To obtain the estimated retail price of the marijuana seized, the agent multiplied $600 per pound by 450 pounds. This price is for marijuana which has been processed and is ready for use. No evidence was submitted showing what parts of the marijuana plant are used in preparing the marijuana rolled into "joints" or smoked in a pipe. Nor was evidence presented showing how many pounds of processed and ready-to-use marijuana can be obtained from a given number of pounds of growing marijuana plants. In his testimony, Petitioner readily admitted that he had planted and cultivated the marijuana seized on September 12, 1989. He also testified that this is the first and only time he has ever attempted to grow marijuana; that he obtained the marijuana seeds and a book on how to grow marijuana from an advertisement in a magazine; that he had never sold marijuana in the past; that he had made no effort to locate a purchaser; or that he had any inkling of how to find a buyer for the plants after they were harvested or how much such plants were worth for use by marijuana users. Petitioner also testified the marijuana was planted a long distance from the nearest traveled road and from the nearest boundary of Petitioner's property; and that there was a canopy provided by trees among which he had planted the marijuana plants, and he didn't think the plants would be readily visible from the air. Petitioner's testimony that the helicopter passed over his property at tree top level, which he estimated at less than 75 feet, is rejected as being in conflict with the altimeter height provided by the helicopter pilot. In the U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of more than 100 marijuana plants.
Recommendation It is recommended that the assessment against Joe "Little Joe" Hatch of $270,999.02 plus interest from September 12, 1989, be dismissed. ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings are generally accepted and included in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, except the following which are rejected. 12-18. Accepted as street value of processed marijuana. 26. Last sentence rejected as contrary to the record that the charge was possession of over 100 marijuana plants. Petitioner failed to timely submit a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond E. LaPorte, Esquire 410 Ware Boulevard, Suite 601 Tampa, FL 33619 Steve Kackley, Esquire 357 S. Orange Avenue Sebring, FL 33870 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Moore General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact General Findings Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 20, 1988, and issued Certificate Number 16-88-002-01. R at 9,10. Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Tallahassee Police Department from January 22, 1988, through May 21, 1990. R at 9. Findings of Fact as to Count 1 of Petitioner's Administrative Complaint On or about April 9, 1990, a letter, return receipt requested, was delivered as addressed to the Tallahassee Police Department, Internal Affairs. Lieutenant Al Brown in internal affairs ultimately received the letter. The letter was signed by a "Lisa" with no surname and had a return address of 1012 Basin Street, #207-C, a nonexistent address. R at 97-99. The letter alleged Respondent bought and smoked marijuana on a daily basis and suggested he be drug tested. R. at 99. Lieutenant Brown checked the address of the anonymous "Lisa" once, and never inquired into the fate of the green card. R at 101, 139. After role call on April 10, 1990, Respondent and his supervisor, Sergeant John Kirby, were met by Lt. Brown. Lt. Brown informed Respondent an anonymous call from a black female had come in which accused him of drug abuse, and requested he take a voluntary test. R at 61, 101-102. Respondent was not ordered to take the test or threatened with discipline if he refused. R at 35, 66-67, 103-104. However, at no time was Respondent clearly informed no adverse action would be taken if he refused the test. R at 140. Respondent, although unable to secure any information about this alleged call, readily agreed to a test. R at 35, 66. At the time, the Respondent was unaware how long after use marijuana could be detected in urine. R at 283. At approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 1990, Lt. Brown drove the Respondent to Physician's Care Center on North Monroe where a urine sample was taken. R at 105. The Respondent filled out paper work, disrobed, put on a hospital gown, and was instructed by the nurse how to provide the sample. R at 106. Lt. Brown requested two samples be taken so that Respondent could submit one for independent testing. R at 106. However, no one advised the Respondent how to get the second sample tested because Brown and the other supervisors did not know how to initiate such a cross test. Respondent was given a sample cup by the nurse in the lieutenant's presence, and required to urinate in the cup in front of the nurse and the lieutenant. The Respondent produced 85 cc's urine in the cup and gave the cup to the nurse. The nurse poured the sample into two smaller SmithKline collection cups which she sealed with evidence tape which was initialed by the Respondent along with the various forms. The sample was assigned a unique identification number, 278485T, which was placed upon the sample to be tested for the police department. Each of the cups was placed into a blue SmithKline toxicology bag and sealed with red evidence tape and initialed. The Respondent signed the forms and the bar code number. R at 109, 178, 191. The department's sample was retained by Physician's Care and delivered to a SmithKline courier, who checked the seals and maintained the chain of custody while delivering it to SmithKline's Tallahassee facility. The chain of custody was maintained as the sample was shipped by air to the SmithKline facility in Tampa, Florida. The other sample was given to the Respondent. The department's sample was checked upon arrival at SmithKline's lab and all the seals were intact. Maintaining the chain of custody, the sample was tested on April 11, 1990. R at 184-186. First, a screening test was performed which proved positive for THC, a metabolite created in the body when it metabolizes marijuana. R at 189. Thereafter, a confirmatory analysis of the department's sample of the Respondent's urine was performed using gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). R at 189. GCMS provides a scientifically reliable test for the presence of marijuana metabolites in urine, which indicates with scientific certainty that the person testing positive smoked marijuana. R at 173-176,192,204-206. The Respondent's urine contained 53 nanograms of THC per milliliter of urine. A second test was then performed which reconfirmed the results of the first test. It showed 58 nanograms of THC per milliliter of urine. The variation in metabolite between the tests is within testing limits, and the amount of metabolite shows marijuana use by the Respondent in the opinion of an expert in such testing based upon these tests. The amount of metabolite is inconsistent with "passive inhalation," although the Respondent did not testify to being present when any individuals were smoking marijuana. R 176-178,193. At the time the drug test was administered to Respondent, no mechanisms for certification of samples and no formal training for collectors of samples was in place, and no evidence was presented on the certification of the technician who took Respondent's sample. R at 198-200. On April 17, 1990, after learning of the Respondent's test results, Lt. Brown, Captain Walter NcNeil, and Lt. Newlin went to Respondent's home, informed him of the positive test results and suspended him from TPD. R at 114. The sample identified as Respondent's showed positive at a level more than three times the cut off level. R at 203. Upon learning of the positive test, the Respondent began to seek a way to have his sample tested. He did not find a facility willing to deal with it until April 25, 1990 when he went to the office of Dr. Esias Lee. Respondent submitted a new urine sample at Dr. Lee's office, and also delivered to the technician the original sample he had given on April 10, 1990. The Respondent also provided a blood sample for testing at his own expense. R. at 227-228. The conditions under which the Respondent gave the sample were not as controlled as they had been at Physician's Care Center, and the technician did not oversee taking of the sample by being present when the Respondent produced the sample. The technician taking the samples indicated she would attempt to submit all samples for testing. R at 227. When Respondent was questioned by Lt. Brown on May 4, 1990, regarding the testing done through Dr. Lee's office, the Respondent thought both the second portion of his April 10, 1990, sample and a new sample taken April 25, 1990, were submitted for testing. R. at 119, 121-122. The second portion of the April 10, 1990, sample had been destroyed because it was old and because the laboratory used by Dr. Lee's office would not accept it. The sample Respondent submitted on April 25, 1990, was sent off for analysis and tested negative. R at 239. The Respondent could have produced a positive test for marijuana use on April 10, 1990, and a negative test for marijuana use on April 25, 1990, if Respondent was only a light user of the drug and had not used marijuana between April 10, 1990, and April 25, 1990. R at 194.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The certification of the Respondent be placed upon probation for two years with the requirement for periodic unannounced drug screening at the Respondent's expense not more than three times per year; and The Respondent be required to advise any employing agency of these proceedings and provide the agency with a copy of the Commission's final order. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of August 1992. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 13th day of August 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 2. Adopted. 3. -13. All relate to the Respondent's job performance which was not at issue except as it might indicate drug use. This evidence was inconsistent with the Respondent's personnel evaluations, with the inference in the drug test that drug use was occasional or light, and was a self-serving retrospective. 14.-18. Adopted. 19. Adopted in part rejected in part as irrelevant. 20.-22. Adopted. 23. Rejected. See paragraph 9 of Recommended Order. 24.-35. Adopted. 36. Rejected. 37.-52. Adopted. 53.-55. Rejected as contrary to more credible interpretation of facts. 56.-57. Adopted. 58. Rejected contrary to more credible credence. 59.-61. Adopted. Respondent's Findings of Facts 1.-11 Adopted. 12. Irrelevant. 13.-16. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gina Cassidy, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Elise M. Matthes, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's expulsion of Respondent from school is appropriate pursuant to provisions of Union County School Board Rule 5.37 and Section 230.23(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is R.S.V. He was a senior year student at Union County High School in October, 1994. Donald Leech was the principal of Union County High School in October, 1994, when he was apprised that there was a possibility of sale and possession of marijuana at the school. Leech contacted the school resource officer, Union County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Townsend, Jr., and an investigation was launched. Efforts of Townsend and Leech failed to yield any evidence of contraband substances on the school campus that could be linked to any individual or tested for purposes of subsequent prosecution. They had, however, obtained information about an event involving the alleged use of marijuana which had occurred on the school campus and allegedly involved Respondent. As a result, their investigation focused on Respondent. Townsend was apprised by his superior at the sheriff's department that a criminal prosecution could not be maintained due to the lack of admissible evidence or a "corpus delicti." Still, Leech and Townsend determined to question Respondent. On October 11, 1994, Leech and Townsend interrogated Respondent regarding his participation in the possession of a marijuana "joint" on school property on October 6, 1994. Townsend first apprised Respondent of his right against self- incrimination through the reading to Respondent of "Miranda" warnings regarding incriminating statements. The questioning then began. In response to questions, Respondent denied any knowledge of the October 6, 1994, incident. Leech failed to gain an admission from Respondent even though Leech advised Respondent that suspension for 10 days for being in an improper area (the school parking lot) was the only likely penalty. Leech then left the room. Respondent asked to telephone his mother. Townsend agreed. Respondent called his mother and explained the situation to her. She asked to speak with Townsend. Townsend told her that sufficient evidence existed to criminally prosecute Respondent. Respondent's mother told Townsend to cease questioning her son until Respondent's father arrived. Townsend complied and left Respondent alone in the room. Respondent's father soon arrived. He did not speak with Respondent. He, likewise, was informed by Townsend that sufficient evidence for prosecution existed, but that co- operation by Respondent would go a long way with authorities and have an impact on the likelihood of prosecution. Then, with the assent of Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father spoke privately with two other youths who were alleged to be involved in the incident. As a result of his conversation with the two youths, Respondent's father learned that his son had been present at a incident on school property where an alleged marijuana cigarette had been smoked but that his son had refused to participate in smoking the "joint." Respondent's father then spoke with Leech and Townsend. In addition to the earlier advice by Townsend of leniency if his son co-operated with the investigation, Respondent's father was now informed by Leech that only a 10 day suspension from school was contemplated because of Respondent's presence during the incident which had occurred in the school parking lot, an "improper area." Without any discussion with his son or legal counsel and solely in reliance upon the representations made to him by Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father then confronted his son and told Respondent to provide a written statement to Leech and Townsend. Respondent's statement reads as follows: On October 6, 1994. Myself, people 1 and people 2 walked out to the parking lot. People 1 lit up a marijuana joint and smoked it then passed it to people 2. After that, people 2 passed it to me. The 2 peoples walked off and I put it out and left it in the parking lot. After school I picked it up and kept it. Respondent later admitted to his father that he subsequently destroyed the remains of the cigarette after leaving school property. While Respondent's written statement references a "marijuana joint", no evidence was presented at the final hearing which is dispositive of whether the substance was, in actuality, cannabis. On the basis of Respondent's written statement, Leech instituted an immediate 10 day suspension of Respondent. On October 13, 1994, two days later, Leech formally recommended to the Union County School Superintendent, Eugene Dukes, that Respondent be expelled for the remainder of the school year. At final hearing, Leech rationalized that his expulsion recommendation was based upon Respondent's actual possession of the alleged contraband, as opposed to merely being present at the incident. By notice dated October 12, 1994, one day before the formal notification to him from Leech, Respondent's mother was informed by Superintendent Dukes that he would recommend the expulsion of Respondent for the remainder of the school year. The notice set forth no specific factual basis for the expulsion recommendation, but recited that the action was taken on the basis of misconduct charges set forth in Section 230.33 and Section 232.26, Florida Statutes, as well as Union County School Board Rules Section 5.37. Dukes also recommended the expulsion of the other students who admitted to actually smoking the alleged marijuana cigarette in question. The proposed expulsion of Respondent prevented his return to Union County High School and resulted in his completion of his senior year of high school in the school district of Columbia County, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Union County School Board imposing a 10 day suspension upon Respondent for violation of school restrictions regarding his presence in an improper location. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order direct the destruction or sealing of school records that document the expulsion of Respondent for possession of a controlled substance due to the absence of credible evidence to sustain such charge. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 May, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1. Accepted. 2.-11. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 12.-13. Rejected, legal conclusions, relevancy. 14. Rejected as to first preparatory phrase of the paragraph as unsupported by weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to result reached. 15.-16. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 17.-18. Incorporated by reference. 19.-20. Rejected, subordinate. 21. Rejected, legal conclusion. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Accepted, but not verbatim. Incorporated by reference. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Meyer and Brooks Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen N. Bernstein, Esquire Post Office Box 1642 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Eugene Dukes, Superintendent Union County School Board 55 West Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Teresa A. Collins was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 19, 1985, and was issued Certificate No. 35-85-002- 02. On February 22, 1985, Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police recruit and commenced training at the Police Academy. At this time, Respondent was considered to be a civilian employee of the police department. When Respondent applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department, a background investigation, polygraph test and physical examination including a urinalysis was done. Respondent acknowledged experimenting with marijuana in 1982 while in college. Following the background investigation and tests, Respondent was recommended as morally fit for duty as a police officer. On an evening in April 1985, Gloria Thomas observed Respondent, who she knew only by sight, sitting at a table in the rear parking lot at McDonald's with another woman. Ms. Thomas saw Respondent pass a cigarette to the other woman who held it between her thumb and forefinger while taking a puff off the cigarette. Ms. Thomas passed within five feet of the table and thought the smoke smelled like marijuana smoke. She did not see Respondent smoke the cigarette and could not definitely state the cigarette was a marijuana cigarette. At the time Respondent commenced her training at the police academy she roomed with Gina Rodriguez with whom she had formerly roomed at Florida State University. Sometime in mid February 1985, Respondent and Rodriguez had a fight during which Respondent struck Rodriguez in the face with her fist breaking her cheekbone. The date of this fight was not clear. Respondent testified it occurred in mid-February and that Rodriguez made demands on her for money for medical bills up to 21 February--the night before she was sworn-in as a police officer. The parties stipulated that Respondent was sworn in April 19, 1985, as a law enforcement officer and she entered the police academy February 22, 1985. Although not completely clear, it appears that Respondent and Rodriguez roomed together in Tampa from February 1, 1985 until the end of March, 1985. Following the fight Rodriguez threatened to see that Respondent never worked in Tampa. Gloria Thomas' observation of Respondent in the parking lot at McDonald's got back to the Tampa police by word of mouth as a rumor and an investigation was launched. On May 8, 1985, Rodriguez was interviewed by the police to inquire if Respondent smoked marijuana while she roomed with Rodriguez. At this interview Rodriguez denied Respondent ever smoked marijuana at the apartment. On May 29, 1985, Rodriguez contacted the police to give another statement about Respondent. At this interview Rodriguez told the police that she saw Respondent frequently use marijuana in late February and March 1985. At the hearing Rodriguez acknowledged making several conflicting statements about Respondent's use of marijuana but insisted that she saw Respondent smoke marijuana at least once in their apartment between February 22, 1985 and the end of March 1985, but could not identify the time of day this occurred, whether anyone else was present, or any detail at all regarding the circumstances in which this event occurred. Rodriguez also acknowledged she had threatened to "get" Respondent after the fight and they are still on unfriendly terms. These factors made her testimony less credible. Elaine Daniels, a friend of Rodriguez at the time of the fight, was interviewed by the police regarding Respondent's use of marijuana. She told the police she traveled in a car one night when Respondent had a package of marijuana with her. The exact date of this trip was not ascertained, but at the time the incidents were related to the police, Daniels was angry at Respondent for hurting her friend Rodriguez, and had been encouraged by Rodriguez to help her "get" Respondent. Daniels testified that she, herself, was stoned most of the time during this period and the only time she could definitely state she saw Respondent smoke marijuana was the end of January 1985. Daniels also testified to a party on Rodriguez's birthday, March 15, at which a marijuana joint was passed around while Respondent was present but she cannot recall Respondent taking a hit. Four women, who associated with Respondent from January through March 1985, never saw Respondent smoke marijuana during that period, but some of them had seen Respondent smoke marijuana a year or so prior to that period of time. In her testimony Respondent categorically denied smoking marijuana in April 1985 at the McDonald's parking lot and could not recall being there at that time; although she has been to this particular McDonald's on several occasions. Respondent acknowledged the "bad" fight she had with Rodriguez and that she had agreed to pay part of the medical bills resulting from that fight. However, Rodriguez never provided her with copies of bills for medical treatment. Respondent categorically denied smoking marijuana or possessing marijuana at any time subsequent to her entry into the police academy on February 22, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations and issues herein, Respondent was the holder of 2 COP alcoholic beverage license number 66-89, held since 1952, for his premises known as Eddie's Drive In, located at 1907 Avenue D., Ft. Pierce, Florida. Mr. Asbury has operated his establishment at that location under the above license since 1952 with only three former infractions of a very minor nature. In 1959, he was warned for a failure to have the fingerprints of an employee on file. In 1963 he was given a 15-day suspension when a minor was found in possession of whiskey as opposed to beer on his premises. In 1965 he was again given a 15-day suspension and, in addition, a $200.00 fine because gambling tickets were found in the premises. Until the instant case, these were the only derogatory incidents in Respondent's file. Respondent has been known to be very cooperative with the authorities and has always quickly corrected violations brought to his attention. In the latter part of 1982, based on a complaint from the Ft. Pierce police Department of numerous narcotics in the Avenue D area, Petitioner conducted an undercover investigation of several establishments in the area including that of the Respondent. Pursuant to that investigation, Beverage Officer Thompson, five year veteran with DABT, who has been given the normal police training in narcotics detection and identification as well as having attended various schools conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and who, based on this education and his experience in the field, is quite familiar with marijuana and its various forms and methods of use, in the company of another beverage investigator, Hamilton, on September 17, 1982, entered Respondent's premises at approximately 9:30 P.M. and observed both Respondent and his bar maid, Lois, on the premises. He took a seat at the bar across from Respondent and several feet off to the side of Lois. He saw Lois pull a cigarette from beneath the bar and start to smoke it. From the way she handled the cigarette and from the way it looked and smelled, he felt it was marijuana. While Lois was smoking this cigarette, she made no effort to hide it and was in full view of the Respondent all the time. Thompson saw Respondent look over in her direction while she was doing it but made no issue of it or even acknowledged it. Though there were other patrons in the bar at the time, Thompson saw nothing else that looked like marijuana use to him that evening. The following evening, September 18, both agents again entered the establishment and sat at the bar. This time the bar maid was Laverne. Thompson also saw a black female identified as Devonza at the counter with whom both he and the other investigator had a brief conversation. Later, Thompson saw another black female identified as Dot (Dorothy Battle), seated across the bar from Laverne, pull out and start smoking a cigarette he thought was marijuana. He also saw Dot pull small manila colored packages from a small pouch she carried and sell them for $5.00. These bags were similar in appearance to what he knew from his experience to be "nickle bags" of marijuana. He also saw Laverne smoking that evening and from the way she held the cigarette and from its odor and the way it was rolled and burning, he concluded it was marijuana. At this particular time, she was on duty behind the bar, but Respondent was not on the premises. No samples of the substance in question were taken either night. Both investigators went back to the premises on September 22 at about 8:30 P.M. There were few patrons in the bar at the time. Thompson went to the bar and sat talking to Laverne who was on duty. When Dot came up and sat at the bar, he asked her if she had any $5.00 bags and she said she did. She pulled out a small manila bag like he had seen her sell on September 18 and made no effort to hide the transaction. She made the transfer to him above the level of the bar. Thompson does not know if Laverne saw the sale or not, but Respondent was not on the premises at the time. The substance he purchased that night was later properly identified as marijuana. When he went back at about 10:00 P.M. on September 23, Thompson saw 10 or more patrons in the bar. He sat down at the bar across from Respondent and asked him if he knew where he could buy some "snow." Respondent indicated he did not, but that there was some around. Respondent's recollection of this conversation differs from that of Thompson. He says he thought Thompson was asking for snow, which is the nickname of a known drug dealer named Coleman, and he said he did hot know where he was but that he was around. Under either interpretation of the conversation, the result is the same. Thompson asked a question and got no assistance from Respondent's answer. There is nothing incriminating either in knowing that "snow" is available in the area (from all reports, drug use is rampant in this area), or in knowing that a known drug dealer, Snow, is around. Thompson had also been in the bar earlier in the day, about 3:00 P.M., when he saw both Laverne and Dot inside. After sitting at the bar for a while, he walked over to the video area where he saw black males rolling and smoking what he took to be marijuana cigarettes in a remote area of the club. While talking with Laverne at the bar, he saw her pass an empty 1/2 of a cardboard beer box to three black males sitting at a table. He saw these males use this box to hold large amounts of what appeared to be raw marijuana from which they were making small manila packages of the substances which they subsequently put into a brown paper bag under the table. During this same time, he saw Laverne smoking what he suspected to be a marijuana cigarette. At about 9:15 P.M. on October 8, Thompson again went back to the club and saw Laverne when he sat at the bar. Another black female, identified as Wanda, came to the bar and offered to sell him marijuana. She pulled out a small package of purported marijuana and laid it on the bar, offering to sell it for $5.00. She also offered to sell him a somewhat larger bag for $6.00. At this point, Thompson gave Laverne a $20.00 bill and asked for change which she gave him. She was standing right there and made no effort at all to stop this sale of marijuana. In fact, Thompson had asked her if Wanda's stuff was any good and she replied it was. While at the club that evening, he also saw other black males and females smoking what to him appeared to be marijuana at a remote area of the bar counter. He formed the opinion it was marijuana because of how the cigarettes were rolled, smoked, and passed around and from the distinctive smell it has. On October 9, 1982, Thompson again went into the place, this time with Hamilton. On this occasion, Laverne was on duty and he sat at the bar and propositioned her to buy him some marijuana. She said she had none then because she had smoked it all, and so he was unable to make a buy that evening, but he saw, while in there, other patrons at the bar and in the area smoking what he is convinced was marijuana. Again, he formed that opinion because of the way the substance was being smoked and handled. Thompson did not get back to Respondent's place until October 15, 1982, when he again went in with Hamilton. On this evening, Respondent was there and he could smell the heavy distinctive odor of marijuana in the premises. Thompson sat at the bar across from Respondent and observed a group of black males at a nearby table. While he was watching, he saw one black male inhale a large quantity of smoke and blow it into the nostrils of the other people at the table. When he saw this, he mentioned it to the Respondent who looked over and acknowledged it but made no effort to stop it or get these patrons out of his place. On this same occasion, the bar maid, Brenda, was smoking what appeared to be marijuana after Respondent left and Thompson was able to purchase marijuana from Dot, at the bar and in front of Brenda, who also made no effort to stop the transfer. Brenda also made no effort to stop other patrons who were rolling and smoking what he believed to be marijuana cigarettes right at the bar. Also on this same evening, Thompson observed Hamilton purchase what was subsequently identified as marijuana from Dot near the video games. The next afternoon, on October 16, 1982, at about 2:30 P.M., Thompson again went into the Respondent's establishment with Hamilton and sat at the bar. At this time, he saw the rolling and smoking of suspected marijuana cigarettes at nearby tables and at the bar by unidentified black males. The smell and packaging of the substance is what convinced him it was marijuana. Neither agent was in Respondent's establishment again until December 18, 1982, when both went in about 8:30 P.M. They sat at the bar where, on this evening, Beverly was the bar maid. While sitting there, Thompson saw various individuals smoking marijuana at different places on the premises and observed that Beverly made no effort to stop it. In fact, from the odor, the method of burning, and the way she smoked, he was convinced she was smoking it herself. Dorothy Lee Battle (Dot) denies ever having met Thompson before this hearing and indicates he is lying when he says he bought marijuana from her at Respondent's establishment. She admits that she was arrested for the sale and delivery of marijuana outside Respondent's place but absolutely denies ever having sold or transferred inside. Even though she refused to cooperate with the authorities who wanted to prosecute Respondent, she was placed on three years probation after being confined for almost 3 1/2 months. She indicates she has known the Respondent since she was a kid and knows that he is definitely opposed to the use of drugs and will not permit it to be sold in his establishment. In fact, he has told her that she was not to bring any marijuana into his place and if she had any he would call the police. She knows that Respondent is quite concerned about losing his license because she believes this is the only business he has. Because of that, there are a lot of signs warning against the smoking or selling of marijuana in there but notwithstanding, she has seen people smoking marijuana inside the bar. However, his patrons respect him and any marijuana smoking is done only when Respondent is not there and never when he is. These signs have also been seen by Mr. Daniel Cribbs, the supplier of Respondent's vending machines, whose family has dealt with him for 30 years or so. Mr. Cribbs has been in Respondent's establishment every two weeks for a long while and has seen these signs prohibiting the use of selling of marijuana up and down for several months or so. He gave no indication as to whether they were there two years or so ago when the incidents in question were alleged to have taken place. In any case, he has spoken with Respondent about marijuana in the past and recalls that Respondent has stated that he doesn't want it in there. These signs were also seen from time to time by Gary Coleman who, by deposition, indicated that they are the normal signs placed in all establishments where beer is sold. Coleman indicates he has also heard Respondent telling people who were smoking pot to leave his place. Coleman denies every smoking marijuana in Respondent's place or, for that matter ever doing anything unlawful there. He has lived in Ft. Pierce for about eight years and in all that time has only been in there about a dozen times or so. He is, however, by his own admission, on probation for selling narcotics. Therefore, neither his testimony or that of Ms. Battle are particularly credible and both Thompson and Young, who conducted the close out investigation of Respondent's premises indicate that on the times they were in there, neither ever saw any signs warning against the sale or smoking of marijuana. It is, therefore, most likely, that if any signs were posted, they were put up long after the incidents in question and were not there prior to official interest being shown. Respondent denies that Thompson ever saw Lois smoke marijuana in his premises. He also indicates that he discharged Laverne by telling her she need not come to work any more when he found out she was doing drugs. He contends he never had any idea people were doing drugs in his establishment. He has, he says, always been against that sort of conduct and has repeatedly told his employees to call either the police or him if they saw people smoking marijuana on his property. He has, on at least one occasion prior to the incidents in question here, called the police on people smoking marijuana in his bar. There is, he contends, only so much one can do about the problem short of that. Even on the occasion he called the police and they came and took the offenders outside, they were not arrested and, as he understood it, even after requesting the police to make these people stay out of his place, the police did not even take their names. Mr. Asbury had a schedule for his routine at the time these alleged incidents took place which had him arriving at his place about 6:00 P.M. to check out the bartender on duty and check the money. This took about 30 minutes. He would then leave and come back between 9:00 and 9:30 P.M. to check for a while, after which he would again leave and come back at 11:00 P.M. and stay for the rest of the evening. This would be his routine just about every night of the week. He has no knowledge of the things that are alleged to have taken place when he was there. As to the shot gunning incident (the blowing of the marijuana smoke into the others' nostrils) that Thompson said he observed, Respondent denies it ever happened. Respondent tries to hire only people he knows and trusts. He pays them in cash and keeps no employment records. During the period in question, he states he had two employees. One was named Vernel (he does not knew anyone named Laverne) and the other was named Lois. Since the incidents in question, Respondent checks on his establishment much more than he did before. He has added a new afternoon visit to his schedule and has hired new girls to tend bar. While prior to this time, no one ever warned him of the problems he was apparently having, even now he still has problems with people smoking marijuana in the place. When he learns of it, he tells them to get out and he is quite satisfied that law enforcement officials have not seen much selling and smoking of marijuana in his place recently.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner the Department of Business Regulation and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for enforcing Chapter 561 Florida Statutes. The Respondent Riffy's Inc. d/b/a Riffy's Pub (hereinafter referred to as "Riffy's") is a corporation. Scott Grant possesses an ownership interest in Riffy's. At all times relevant to this proceeding Riffy's held Florida alcoholic beverage license number 19-00616 series 2-COP (hereinafter referred to as the "License"). The License authorized Riffy's to sell and possess alcoholic beverages beer and wine only on the premises of Riffy's located at 948 S.W. U.S. Highway 41 Inverness Citrus County Florida. The Division's Investigation of Riffy's. Between September 15 1993 and December 15 1993 the Division conducted an investigation of possible narcotic laws violations at Riffy's. Special Agents Michael Bays Richard Hulburt Denise Deen Ashley Murray and Dean Pescia participated in the investigation. Throughout the investigation the agents involved who had the opportunity to smoke marijuana at Riffy's simulated smoking. No marijuana was ingested so that the agents' perception would not be affected. On a number of occasions the agents witnessed the smoking of cigarettes which appeared to be marijuana. The conclusion that marijuana may have been smoked was based upon the agents' observation of the manner in which the cigarettes were smoked and the smell of what was being smoked. Unless specifically indicated otherwise in findings of fact made in this Recommended Order the evidence failed to prove that marijuana or cannabis was actually being smoked. The findings concerning those incidents are made only as evidence of whether the owner of Riffy's should have suspected that illegal activities were taking place on or near the licensed premises. Results of the Division's Investigation. September 16 1993; Count 1: Agent Hurlburt entered the licensed premises of Riffy's (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"). Agent Hurlburt met and spoke with a patron named Neil. After discussing the consumption of marijuana Agent Hurlburt and Neil left the Premises and went to a vehicle in the parking lot of the Premises. The parking lot was for the use of patrons of Riffy's. Agent Hurlburt purchased a cigarette suspected of being marijuana from Neil. Analysis of the cigarette revealed that it was cannabis commonly known as marijuana. Agent Hurlburt simulated smoking another suspected marijuana cigarette with three other patrons. A female patron suggested to them that they go around to the side of the Premises to smoke. The purchase and smoking of the marijuana cigarette took place approximately 15 to 20 feet from the Premises. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Grant or any employee of Riffy's witnessed these events or that Mr. Grant was at the Premises. September 30 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt observed several patrons leave the Premises and go to the east side of the Premises where the female patron had suggested that Agent Hurlburt go to smoke on September 16 1993. They were then observed smoking a cigarette in a manner consistent with the manner in which marijuana cigarettes are smoked: the "joint" is held near the front end with the thumb and forefinger. The smell of the burning material was also consistent with the smell of marijuana. There were windows at the east side of the Premises. Patrons were allowed to smoke cigarettes in the Premises. They were not required to go into the parking lot of Riffy's in order to smoke. d. The individuals involved returned to the Premises. October 6 1993; Count 2: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. He met an employee known as Mike. Mike was later identified as Mike Smith. Mike was a doorman for Riffy's. He collected entrance fees from patrons. Agent Hurlburt told Mike that he wished to purchase marijuana. Mike did not indicate that this was not permissible on the Premises. Mike told Agent Hurlburt that he could not get any marijuana that night but that he would have some the next night. Agent Hurlburt paid Mike for the marijuana that night with the agreement that delivery would be made the next night. The purchase was made in an open manner. No effort was made to speak softly or to hide the exchange of money. October 7 1993; Count 2: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and met with Mike. Mike directed Agent Hurlburt to the restroom. Mike gave Agent Hurlburt a plastic bag containing 5.5 grams of cannabis. October 14 1993; Count 3 and 4. Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Several patrons were witnessed leaving the Premises during a break by the band playing that night smoking what Agent Hurlburt believed to be marijuana and return to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt purchased 5.3 grams of cannabis from Mike. The sale took place in the restroom. Agent Hurlburt also purchased what Mike called "percs". The percs were percocet which were found to contain oxycodone. This transaction also took place in the restroom. October 22 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt attempted to purchase marijuana from Mike but Mike was unable to supply any. October 28 1993; Count 5: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and asked Mike if he could purchase marijuana. Mike sold marijuana to Agent Hurlburt. The money for the marijuana was given openly to Mike inside the Premises. Later Mike gave the marijuana to Agent Hurlburt: Agent Hurlburt was on a concrete slab just outside the front door of the Premises. Mike held the entrance door open and stepped onto the concrete slab where he gave the marijuana to Agent Hurlburt. The marijuana purchased consisted of 5.5 grams of cannabis. October 30 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned and twice simulated smoking marijuana with patrons and "Ron" a member of the band playing at Riffy's that night. These incidents took place outside the Premises in the parking lot. November 4 1993; Count 6: Agent Hurlburt returned and asked Mike to sell him marijuana. Mike agreed to sell 5.1 grams of cannabis to Agent Hurlburt. This agreement was reached in the Premises. Delivery took place just outside the front door the Premises. November 17 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt attempted to purchase marijuana from an employee of Riffy's known as Crystal. Crystal indicated she was unable to find any that night. Crystal did not indicate that marijuana was not allowed on the Premises. Agent Hurlburt left the Premises and sat in a car in the parking lot with a patron known as "Keith." The car was parked in the front of the Premises. Agent Hurlburt simulated smoking what he believed to be marijuana based upon its odor and the manner in which Keith smoked the cigarette. The car windows were open. While in the car with Keith and while the cigarette was burning Mr. Grant and Casey manager of Riffy's walked immediately in front of the car. Casey laughing asked "what are you guys doing." Keith responded "what do you think." November 18 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and attempted to buy marijuana from Crystal. Crystal again told Agent Hurlburt that she could not find any marijuana that night. She again failed to tell Agent Hurlburt that Marijuana could not be purchased at the Premises. November 19 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt observed several patrons smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in the parking lot of the Premises. They did not attempt to hide what they were doing. The patrons returned to the Premises after smoking. November 20 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. He again observed patrons smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes outside the Premises in the parking lot. The patrons then returned to the Premises. Mike approached Agent Hurlburt inside the Premises and asked if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Mike was not able however to provide marijuana that night. November 24 1993; Count 7: Agent Deen and Agent Murray went to the Premises together. The agents met Kenny Smith an employee of Riffy's. Kenny worked in the kitchen. Kenny took the agents out of the kitchen through a door to the back of the Premises to smoke what appeared to be and Kenny identified as a marijuana cigarette. The agents simulated smoking the cigarette with Kenny. Kenny also sold a 6.2 grams of cannabis to Agents Deen and Murray. The sale took place outside in the back of the Premises near the kitchen door. c. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when this transaction took place. November 24 1993; Counts 8 and 9: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt asked Mike about purchasing marijuana. Mike agreed. This conversation took place in the Premises. Mike delivered the marijuana just outside the Premises at the front door. Agent Hurlburt was sold 6.5 grams of cannabis. Agent Hurlburt also simulated smoking marijuana with other patrons outside the Premises in the rear near the kitchen door. Agent Hurlburt also purchased 5.4 grams of cannabis from a patron named "Dave." This sale took place outside the Premises. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when these events took place. December 1 1993; Count 10: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt purchased 7.1 grams of cannabis from Mike. The sale took place inside the Premises at the front door. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when the sale took place. December 2 1993; Count 11: Agent Deen and Murray returned to the Premises. The agents were introduced by Kenny to Mr. Grant in the kitchen of the Premises. Inside the Premises Kenny gave Agent Deen what he described as a marijuana cigarette. Kenny smoked the cigarette and Agent Deen simulated smoking it just outside the kitchen door. Kenny sold 3.9 grams of cannabis to the agents outside the kitchen door. December 3 1993: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. The agents simulated smoking a marijuana cigarette with Kenny outside the kitchen door. The cigarette contained .1 grams of cannabis. Casey opened the kitchen door while they were smoking the marijuana and told Kenny to come inside. December 4 1993; Count 12: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. Kenny told the agent to wait for him outside the kitchen door where they simulated smoking what they believed to be a marijuana cigarette. While simulating smoking the cigarette Mr. Grant was at his truck approximately 15 feet away. Mr. Grant was speaking on a mobile telephone. The agents and Kenny were in plain view of Mr. Grant. The agents also purchased 2.4 grams of cannabis from Kenny at the same location. December 9 1993; Count 13: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. Kenny sold and delivered 2.4 grams of cannabis to the agents in a room used by the bands that played at Riffy's. The room is part of the Premises. The agents also simulated smoking what they believed was marijuana with Kenny and a band member outside the kitchen door. Mr. Grant was only a few feet away when the agents were simulating smoking. Mr. Grant who admitted he is familiar with the smell of marijuana was close enough to smell what was being smoked and did not make any inquiry as to what the patrons were doing. December 2 and 9 1993: a. Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises on these dates. 30b. Agent Hurlburt observed patrons exist the Premises smoke what appeared to be marijuana in the parking lot and return to the Premises. Mr. Grant was outside the Premises on December 2 1993 when patrons were smoking outside. December 10 1993; Count 14: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Mr. Grant was present at the Premises. Agent Hurlburt told Mr. Grant that he had purchased marijuana "here." Agent Hurlburt did not specify whether "here" meant the Premises Inverness or somewhere else. Mr. Grant however did not ask Agent Hurlburt whether he meant the Premises. Agent Hurlburt then asked Mr. Grant if he knew where he could purchase some sensemilla a type of marijuana. Mr. Grant indicated that he did not known where. Mr. Grant did not indicate that he did not allow the purchase or use of narcotics on the Premises. Agent Hurlburt also purchased 6.5 grams of cannabis from Mike that evening. The money was given to Mike inside the Premises and Mike gave Agent Hurlburt the marijuana inside the Premises. December 15 1993: The Division served a Search Warrant Notice to Show Cause and Emergency Order of Suspension on Riffy's. Agent Deen arrested Kenny and confiscated a bag of marijuana from Kenny. The bag contained 2.4 grams of cannabis. A bottle of Jim Bean whiskey was found in a room on the premises used by bands. All of the uses sales and delivery of marijuana described in the foregoing findings of fact took place in a relatively open manner and little effort was taken to disguise or conceal any illegal activity. Riffy's Efforts to Prevent Violations of Law. Mr. Grant testified that he instructed employees to not to engage in drug activities. One employee substantiated this testimony but that employee was Kenny one of the individuals involved in illegal activities on and near the Premises. Mr. Grant's and Kenny's testimony concerning efforts to prevent illegal activities on the Premises is rejected. There was not other evidence of efforts by the owners of Riffy's to insure that illegal activities did not take place on the Premises. In light of the open use of what appeared to be and smelled like marijuana in the parking lot of the Premises Mr. Grant should have taken some steps to prevent illegal narcotics activities on the Premises described in this Recommended Order. This is especially true based upon Mr. Grant's admission during the hearing of this matter that he smelled what he believed to be marijuana smoke "on the way to the dumpster."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order finding that Riffy's Inc. d/b/a Riffy's Pub is guilty of Counts 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 13 14 and 16 of case number 94-0606. It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts 1 7 12 15 and 17 of case number 94-606 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Riffy's alcoholic beverage license number 19-00616 series 2-COP be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that Riffy's be assessed a $1000.00 civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June 1994 in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of June 1994. APPENDIX Case Numbers 94-0606 and 94-1348 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5-6 31 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 7 and 9. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14-15. The events described in the first sentence took place on October 22 1993. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19-21. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 8 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 30. Accepted in 31. Accepted in 32. Riffy's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Not supported by the evidence. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 11. Accepted in 24. The evidence did fail to prove that Mr. Grant had actual knowledge of these events. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 28. See 28. Accepted in 30. Accepted in 30. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Statement of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Statement of law. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 4. Statement of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007 Stephen C. Booth Esquire 7510 Ridge Road Port Richey Florida 34668 Sgt. Homer Scroggin Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1103 SW 1st Avenue Ocala Florida 32678-4218 Jack McRay DBPR Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32399-0792 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer have good moral character, and if not, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC) certified Respondent as a correctional officer on September 24, 1995. The CJSTC issued Respondent Correctional Certificate No. 159769. Gulf Correctional Institution (GCI) employed Respondent as a correctional officer on August 18, 1995. GCI terminated Respondent's employment on September 2, 1997. Respondent's maiden name is "Manley." Cheryl Manley and Cynthia Manley are Respondent's sisters. At all times material here, Petitioner lived at 1909-A Mack Lewis Drive, Panama City, Florida. At all times material here, Alan Belsky was an inmate at Gulf Correctional Institution. Inmate Belsky was acquainted with Respondent as a correctional officer but did not know her sisters. In late June 1997 or early July 1997, Respondent agreed to sell Inmate Belsky some marijuana. Respondent made this agreement while she was on duty as a correctional officer at GCI. She directed Inmate Belsky to have the money for the marijuana sent to Cheryl Manley using a Western Union Money Transfer with the proceeds in the amount of $50 to be picked up at a Winn Dixie store in Panama City, Florida. Subsequently, Inmate Belsky requested his grandmother, Ester Belsky from Halendale, Florida, to send $50 to Cheryl Manley as directed. Inmate Belsky told his grandmother that the money would cover his gambling debts. Using a Western Union Money Transfer, Ms. Belsky sent the money to Cheryl Manley on July 13, 1997. Thereafter, Respondent personally delivered a quarter gram of marijuana to Inmate Belsky. Respondent agreed to sell Inmate Belsky some marijuana a second time. She directed Inmate Belsky to send $100 to Cynthia Manley at 1909-A Mack Lewis Drive, Panama City, Florida. Inmate Belsky again told his grandmother that he needed money to pay gambling debts. Inmate Belsky asked his grandmother to send $100 to Cynthia Manley at 1909-A Mack Lewis Drive, Panama City, Florida. Ms. Belsky sent Cynthia Manley a personal check dated August 1, 1997, in the amount of $100. Respondent admits that she endorsed the check under the signature of Cynthia Manley. Respondent's testimony that she only endorsed the check because her sister did not have a checking account at the bank is not credible. After receiving the check for $100, Respondent used another inmate as a go-between to deliver the marijuana to Inmate Belsky. Sometime thereafter, GCI gave Inmate Belsky a urine test for controlled substances. Inmate Belsky tested positive for marijuana use. The money that Ms. Belsky sent to Respondent's sisters was compensation for Respondent's delivery of marijuana to Inmate Belsky on two occasions. Therefore, Respondent received unlawful compensation while acting in her official capacity as a public servant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That CJSTC enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 2001.
