The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Frank Wallberg was going through a divorce and wanted a background investigation on his wife's attorney. On June 19, 1992, he went to the office of South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc. (Respondent Bureau) and specifically requested the services of William Polero (Respondent W. Polero) who he had met a few years prior to this. Respondent Bureau's secretary contacted Respondent W. Polero by telephone, and Wallberg explained to him what he wanted. Respondent W. Polero agreed to perform the background investigation on the attorney, requiring Wallberg to first pay a $1,500 retainer which he was to bring to Respondent W. Polero's home, approximately two blocks from Respondent Bureau's office. As agreed, Wallberg met Respondent W. Polero at his home and gave him a check for $1,500 as a retainer, made payable to Respondent Bureau. For the $1,500 Respondent W. Polero indicated that a complete written report on the attorney could be performed. Wallberg provided Respondent W. Polero with the attorney's complete name, address and telephone number. Respondent W. Polero made several telephone calls while Wallberg was at his home, attempting to obtain information on the attorney but all were unsuccessful. Approximately two days later, Wallberg contacted Respondent W. Polero inquiring about the progress of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero indicated that he was waiting for responses from inquiries and to contact him again that following Friday. Wallberg called back as directed. Respondent W. Polero indicated that after searching public records and court records and contacting The Florida Bar and other attorneys, the attorney had nothing irregular in his background. Feeling that he had not gotten his money worth, Wallberg questioned the cost of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero responded that there was nothing else to report, so there was nothing to report in writing and that the cost of the investigation was $1,500. By that time, the $1,500 check had been cashed. Being very disappointed, on or about July 11, 1992, Wallberg contacted another investigative agency, the Wackenhut Corporation, and obtained their services. He provided Wackenhut's investigator, John Rose, with the same information that he had provided Respondent W. Polero, i.e., the attorney's name, address and telephone number. On July 13, 1992, Rose began his investigation. By July 15, 1992, Rose had completed his investigation and prepared an 18 page written report with numerous exhibits attached. His report reflected the numerous sources he utilized, which included researching public records at the Dade County Courthouse, records maintained by the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, including vehicle and driver license information, criminal records maintained by Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department and public records of The Florida Bar. Through these sources, Rose was able to obtain a plethora of information on the attorney, including a history of federal and state tax liens having been filed against the attorney's property, criminal arrests and convictions, and disciplinary action against the attorney by The Florida Bar, with the specifics thereon. With his written report, Rose submitted an itemized invoice dated July 15, 1992, for his services, totaling $650.30. The invoice reflected that he had expended 10 hours on the investigation (generally outlining what was done), at a charge of $60 an hour, equalling $600 for the time, and that there were $50.30 in additional costs ($27 document copies, $2 for parking and $21.30 for mileage). By letter dated September 23, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondents that he had obtained the services of Wackenhut Corporation and requested that they provide Wackenhut with all the information in their file when requested by Wackenhut. By fax transmission on that same date, Jamie Polero (Respondent J. Polero), President of Respondent Bureau and the son of Respondent W. Polero, responded indicating, among other things, that there was no new or different information from what Respondent W. Polero had provided him and that since Wallberg had not contacted them for almost three months, he had assumed that Wallberg did not wish to continue the investigation. This was the first time that Wallberg had had any contact with Respondent J. Polero. By letter dated September 24, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondent J. Polero of his dissatisfaction with the investigation performed by Respondent Bureau and requested a $1,350 refund of the $1,500 within 24 hours. Wallberg never received any refund. Several communications between Wallberg and Respondent J. Polero failed to resolve the dispute. Finally, Wallberg contacted State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Petitioner) and filed a complaint. Respondent Bureau's investigative file for Wallberg consisted of nine pages, most of which were communications back and forth with Wallberg. Approximately eight hours were expended on Wallberg's case. Even though little investigative work was done, Respondent J. Polero admitted that most of it was performed by Respondent W. Polero, and not by himself. The investigative work performed by Respondents failed to meet industry standards in that the minimum investigation was not conducted, public records were not properly researched and false information was provided to Wallberg, their client. At all times material hereto, Respondent W. Polero was unlicensed. At all times material hereto, Respondent J. Polero was a licensed private investigator (Class "C" license) and a licensed recovery agent (repossessor) (Class "E" license). Also, at all times material hereto, Respondent Bureau was a licensed private investigative agency (Class "A" license) and a licensed recovery (repossession) agency (Class "R" license). No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent J. Polero. Both Respondent Bureau and Respondent W. Polero have prior disciplinary history. In 1989, Petitioner filed administrative complaints against both Respondents for, among other things, unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to a penalty of an administrative fine totalling $1,800, 2/ which was paid on or about August 30, 1989. 3/ Additionally, in 1989, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Bureau and in 1990 against Respondent W. Polero for unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to an administrative fine of $2,000 4/ which was paid by Respondent Bureau on or about May 25, 1990. 5/ As a related issue to the 1990 complaint, on April 27, 1990, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to Respondent W. Polero's unlicensed activity-- performing private investigative work without a license and managing a private investigative agency without a license--and served him on May 8, 1990.
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: Suspending South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc.'s Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "R" recovery (repossession) agency license for one year and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Suspending Jamie J. Polero's Class "C" private investigator license and Class "E" recovery agent (repossessor) license for one year 6/ and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 against William Polero. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of March 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of March 1994.
Findings Of Fact Since 1972, petitioner Dennis F. Darnell has been in the tow truck business. He owns and operates one such truck. In addition to towing disabled cars to garages, petitioner has had five years' experience in locating and repossessing all types of vehicles. Typically, a financial institution would engage him to retrieve an automobile from a borrower in default, after telephoning the borrower that a tow truck was coming. In such cases, the lender furnished petitioner a "route sheet" with the name and address of the borrower and a description of the car. At one time or another, petitioner has worked in this way for every bank in Marion County. Petitioner has also been hired by private investigators to tow away vehicles the investigators had already tracked down. Occasionally, petitioner himself has used information obtained from utility companies, the courthouse and the post office to locate vehicles for repossession. In the winter of 1979, Mr. Reister, an employee of the respondent, told petitioner that petitioner needed a license in order to continue to do the work he had been doing for the banks. This was the first petitioner had heard of any such requirement. He agreed to stop working for the banks until he obtained a license and asked Mr. Reister to send him application forms. One week after he received the forms, petitioner submitted the completed forms to respondent. From the time he spoke to Mr. Reister until the time of the hearing, petitioner did not tow any repossessed cars for banks. On receiving respondent's letter of disapproval, petitioner retained counsel who requested a formal administrative hearing. Respondent referred petitioner's counsel's request for an administrative hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for private investigative agency license, DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel L. Hightower, Esquire 116 South East Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 32670 William J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Department of State Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On June 22, 1987, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for a Class "C" private investigator license. After review of the application and verification of the previous work experience listed in it, Respondent determined the work experience did not meet the statutory requirement of section 493.306 (4), Florida Statutes, that an applicant for the Class "C" license have two years training or experience in private investigative work or related work areas providing equivalent experience. The Respondent denied Petitioner's application on October 5, 1987. The Petitioner is presently employed as a process server. He was employed for varying periods of time between July, 1984, and May of 1987, by four law firms. In the course of this employment, Petitioner sometimes assisted lawyers and witnesses prepare for trial by retrieval of information from records within the particular firm where he was working, or from public records at various public institutions. Among the public records he is accustomed to reviewing are those of Respondent's Division of Corporations. On one occasion, he did, pursuant to instructions from his employer, search through a garage in Tampa, Florida, for certain records. In the course of his work experience, Petitioner has never conducted any kind of surveillance, located a missing person, or investigated a homicide or arson case. He has never testified at a trial or conducted an electronic "debugging" or "bugging" exercise. The Petitioner completed a short prescribed program at the Miami-Dade Community College in August of 1979, and was awarded a "planned certificate" as a legal assistant. To obtain this certificate, he completed various courses at the college during the period stretching from January, 1976, until July, 1979. Among those courses completed by the Petitioner were three hour courses in legal research, business law, legal writing, domestic relations and criminal law, and legal writing. Alan Rollins, assistant director for Respondent's licensing division, testified that Respondent's policy has been to define the statutorily required licensing prerequisite of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work" as a requirement that an applicant for a Class "C" license possess field investigatory experience beyond the mere review of public records. Rollins noted that even law enforcement officers could not be licensed under this policy, unless equipped with investigatory experience. He further stated that the policy is the result of Respondent's desire to be consistent with the perceived legislative intent of the statute to protect the public welfare. Harvey Morse, owner of several private investigator agencies, holder of a law degree and a practicing private investigator, testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. The testimony of Morse establishes that surveillance experience is essential to the conduct of investigations by private investigators. Since the purpose of licensing private investigators is to protect the interest of the public in obtaining competent services from persons holding themselves out as private investigators, the legal research experience and education of the Respondent is not, standing alone, an adequate substitute for the statutory requirement of experience in the areas of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work". Morse, who also serves as chairman of the advisory council which advises the Respondent on licensing of this profession, opined that the Petitioner was qualified only to obtain information from public records. Experience in a related field of work should involve surveillance. Such experience could be obtained by the Petitioner through first obtaining a Class "CC" license and working as an intern to a licensed investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Included in finding 1. Included in finding 2. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 1. 5.-14. Unnecessary to result reached. 15. Included in finding 5. 16.-19. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 3. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 2. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL, 32399-0250 Mr. Martin Broyles 985 N.E. 149th Street Miami, Florida 33161 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI. CASE NO. 95-3553 On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed. 1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows: A. 1-4-95 Computer Research $100.00 B. 1-5-95 Surveillance 130.00 C. 1-5-95 Travel Time 32.50 D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 ) 33.75 E. 1-6-95 Surveillance 325.00 F. 1-6-95 Travel Time 65.00 G. 1-7-95 Standby Time 65.00 $751.25 The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00. His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted. CASE 95-4775 At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Shaw Investigations aided or abetted Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, an Alabama private investigative corporation not licensed to conduct business in Florida, and that corporation's private investigator employees, in engaging in unlicensed activity in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(10(n), Florida Statutes; (2) whether Shaw Investigations failed or refused to cooperate with an agency representative's official investigation by not furnishing documentation required under a subpoena duces tecum in violation of Sections 493.6118(1)(o) and 493.6121(4), Florida Statutes; (3) whether Shaw Investigations committed misconduct in the course of regulated activity by failing to provide a client with written reports and accounting of investigative expenditures in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes; (4) whether Shaw Investigations Agency, Incorporated, performed private investigations in Florida without a license in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 1C- 3.120(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code; (5) whether Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, allowed unlicensed persons to perform private investigative services in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes; (6) and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these consolidated cases, Shaw Investigations, Mitchell D. Shaw, Owner, had a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license, no. A89-00262, and Mitchell D. Shaw had a Class "C" Private Investigator license, no. C89-00625. Shaw Investigations currently has a valid Class "A" license, which was effective February 3, 1998, and expires on November 8, 1999. Mitchell D. Shaw has a valid Class "C" license, which was effective September 16, 1997, and expires on August 2, 1999. Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., Mitchell D. Shaw, President, is an Alabama corporation. It is not licensed as a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency in Florida. Michelle Davis, Linda Moulton, and Ricky Tharpe are former employees of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. They worked for the Alabama investigative agency at all times relevant here. However, they were not licensed Florida private investigators or private investigator interns on those dates. Ms. Davis worked for Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. as a private investigator intern and secretary. Ms. Moulton worked as a private investigator for the Alabama investigative agency. Mr. Tharpe was hired to work as a sales manager and private investigator in Alabama. His duties included conducting surveillance and checking tag numbers. F. Page Whatley was an employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., at all times relevant here. He did not have a Florida private investigator or private investigator intern license on those dates. Mr. Whatley obtained licensure as a Florida private investigator on February 6, 1997. The earliest that Mr. Whatley could have worked as a private investigator in Florida was upon submission of his complete application on November 5, 1996. Jeffery Lee Fears (Fears) was a resident of Georgia. In April of 1994, Fears was in Panama City Beach, Florida, on spring break when he died at a condominium complex, Ocean Towers. The Panama City Beach Police Department ruled his death a suicide.1 The Fears family hired Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., to conduct a private investigation into the death of their son. They specifically hired the Alabama private investigative corporation because they did not agree with Florida law enforcement authorities that Fears' death was the result of suicide. The Fears investigation consisted of numerous witness interviews in Georgia, Florida, and other states, the gathering of evidence and witness information, and an examination of the physical site of death in Panama City Beach, Florida. When the Fears investigation was initiated and until March of 1996, Mr. Shaw was president of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. Sometime between March 15, 1996, and March 15, 1997, Mr. Whatley became president of the Alabama corporation. When the Fears investigation was initiated, the Florida investigative agency was the employer of investigators, other than Mr. Shaw, who held Florida Class "C" Private Investigators licenses. However, Mr. Shaw did not utilize the services of the other licensed Florida investigators in the Fears case. On May 3, 1994, Ms. Davis traveled alone from Dothan, Alabama, to Panama City, Florida, at the direction of Mr. Shaw. While she was there, Ms. Davis attempted to locate Charles Russell, the security guard who was on duty at Ocean Towers the night that Fears died. She also obtained a copy of a report from the Panama City Beach Police Department relative to an accident that occurred the same night as the Fears death. Upon her return to Dothan, Alabama, Ms. Davis prepared a written report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 4, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled to Panama City, Florida, with Mr. Shaw and another employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. They first went to the Panama City Beach Police Department, where Mr. Tharpe attempted to get the gun that allegedly killed Fears. The men then went to the Ocean Towers complex where they talked to the manager, took pictures of the accident scene, measured the time required to walk up and down stairs and to go up and down in the elevator, observed blood stains, and looked for bullets on the outside of the building. On May 5, 1994, Mr. Shaw directed Ms. Moulton to travel alone to Panama City, Florida, from Dothan, Alabama, to locate the security guard, Charles Russell. After making inquiries at the apartment complex where Mr. Russell lived, Ms. Moulton learned that he was out of town. She then returned to Dothan where she prepared a report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 19, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled with Mr. Shaw and the Fears attorney to Panama City, Florida. The men went first to the Panama City Beach Police Department in an unsuccessful attempt to get the gun that allegedly killed Fears. Next, Mr. Tharpe went with Mr. Shaw and the attorney to the Ocean Towers complex where they observed the site of Fears' death. Lastly, the men attempted unsuccessfully to locate Mr. Russell at his apartment. Upon his return to Dothan, Alabama, Mr. Tharpe prepared a written report describing the investigation conducted that day on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 27, 1994, Ms. Moulton again traveled alone to Panama City, Florida, as directed by Mr. Shaw. She first inquired whether two local television stations had any news footage relative to the death of Fears. She learned that the stations did not have any such footage. Next, Ms. Moulton went to Mr. Russell's apartment complex. Her inquiries revealed that he was back in town but not at home. Ms. Moulton set up surveillance to wait for Mr. Russell's return. She subsequently took pictures of a man entering Mr. Russell's apartment and got the tag numbers of six vehicles in the parking lot behind the apartment. Ms. Moulton went to the local tag registration office. She got the names of all the owners of the vehicles except one, which was unregistered. Ms. Moulton returned to Mr. Russell's apartment and continued her surveillance. When Mr. Russell left his apartment, Ms. Moulton took a picture of him with his car, noting his physical description and the make, model, and color of his car. She then returned to Dothan, Alabama, where she made a written report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On June 1, 1994, Mr. Shaw directed Ms. Moulton to travel from Dothan, Alabama, to Panama City, Florida, to set up surveillance on Mr. Russell's apartment. She waited outside Mr. Russell's apartment until Mr. Shaw arrived to conduct an interview. Ms. Moulton then traveled to the local library to research the newspaper coverage on Fears' death. She retained a copy of a newspaper story about the incident. Next, Ms. Moulton went to the Panama City Police Department to obtain information on shootings between March 28, 1994 and April 6, 1994. She learned that there were no such incidents. Ms. Moulton went to the Bay County Sheriff's Department to obtain information on shootings that occurred between March 28, 1994 through April 6, 1994. She learned that her request would require payment for the research and copies of the results. Ms. Moulton went to the Panama City Beach Police Department to obtain the same type of information. She retained a computer print-out on all calls that the department responded to between the relevant dates. Ms. Moulton then returned to Dothan, Alabama. She prepared a written report of her investigations conducted on June 1, 1994, for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On June 22, 1994, Ms. Davis went to Panama City Beach with the Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., investigators and the Fears family. While she was there, she participated in the investigation by timing the walk from a Burger King restaurant to the sixth floor of the Ocean Towers. On July 18, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled alone to Panama City, Florida, on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. He first went to the Panama City Beach Police Department in an attempt to pick up the gun that allegedly killed Fears. Next, Mr. Tharpe conducted an interview with Mr. Russell at his apartment. Mr. Tharpe prepared a written report of his investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On October 18, 1994, Ms. Moulton traveled with Mr. Shaw to Panama City, Florida. She did not independently conduct any investigative work. However, she was present when Mr. Shaw interviewed Dr. William Eckerd, the Bay County coroner. On at least one other occasion, Mr. Tharpe traveled alone to Panama City Beach, Florida, on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. He took a blood test kit to locate spots of blood at the scene of Fears' death at Ocean Towers. Mr. Shaw testified that Mr. Tharpe's primary involvement in the Fears investigation was as an expert hired to build a model of the crime scene. This testimony is not persuasive. On November 18, 1995 or November 19, 1995, Henry Locke of Panama City, Florida, decided to hire a private investigator to research the work history of a co-worker, Ron Barlow. Mr. Locke looked in the local phone book and called Shaw Investigations using a local number. Mr. Locke spoke with a man who identified himself as a private investigator. The man on the phone said that he would meet with Mr. Locke the next day on his way back to Dothan, Alabama, from working on a case in Panama City Beach, Florida. Until that time, Mr. Locke did not know that the investigator was from Dothan, Alabama. Page Whatley was the man who showed up at Mr. Locke's home the next day. Mr. Locke believed Mr. Whatley was the man he had spoken to on the phone. Mr. Locke told Mr. Whatley that he wanted a background check on the work history of Ron Barlow, a co-worker. Specifically, Mr. Locke explained that he wanted to know the places where Mr. Barlow had worked and the type of work he had done. The information that Mr. Locke provided to Mr. Whatley was personal and confidential; Mr. Locke did not want anyone, especially Mr. Barlow, to know about the private investigation. Mr. Whatley agreed to provide Mr. Locke with the requested information for a fee in the amount of $750. Mr. Locke and Mr. Whatley signed a contract dated November 20, 1995, indicating that the work to be performed included a background check. The contract heading was "Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc." The "Inc." on the contract was crossed out, indicating that the contract was with Shaw Investigations, the Florida Agency. In November of 1995, Mr. Shaw was president of the Alabama investigative agency. Mr. Whatley was not licensed in Florida at that time. Mr. Locke mailed a check in the amount of $750 the next day. He sent the check to a Dothan, Alabama, address. The check is dated November 20, 1995, and made payable to Shaw Investigation Agency. Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., subsequently cashed the check. Shaw Investigations, the Florida agency, does not perform computer-generated background checks because it does not have the necessary technical equipment and staff. Mr. Shaw uses the equipment owned by the Alabama corporation and its employees, who are unlicensed in Florida, to do the research necessary for that type of work. Mr. Locke was not aware of these facts when he sent his check to Dothan, Alabama. He thought the Alabama office was a branch of the Florida agency. In December of 1995, an employee from Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., called Mr. Locke on the telephone to tell him that a background check on Ron Barlow did not reveal a criminal record. The Alabama employee also discussed the results of Ron Barlow's workman's compensation claim history. At that time, Locke did not complain that the information provided was not satisfactory because it did not include Ron Barlow's work history. Isabel Shaw, an employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., testified at hearing that she mailed Mr. Locke a copy of the report in January of 1996 in accordance with company procedure. This testimony is not credible. About one year later, Mr. Locke contacted other local investigators. One of those investigators recommended that Mr. Locke contact Petitioner to file a complaint against Shaw Investigations. Petitioner received Mr. Locke's complaint on February 28, 1997. Around the time that Mr. Locke filed his complaint with Petitioner, he called the Dothan, Alabama, office to complain that he had not gotten a report. An employee in the Alabama office told him that he had been given a verbal report in December of 1995. He and the employee got into an argument and the employee hung up the phone. Mr. Whatley wrote Mr. Locke a letter dated April 7, 1997, apologizing for any misunderstanding and enclosing a copy of a two page report containing Ron Barlow's workman's compensation claim history. Mr. Locke has never received the information he originally requested concerning Ron Barlow's work history. In March of 1995, Petitioner received a complaint from officials in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) concerning Mr. Shaw's investigation of the Fears case. Petitioner directed its investigator, Robert Cousson, to hold his investigation in abeyance until FDLE completed its investigation of the Fears case. On June 28, 1996, Mr. Cousson contacted Mr. Shaw by telephone and requested a copy of expenses involved with the Fears case, the entire case file, a list of investigators who had worked on the case, and a list of the code numbers of those investigators. Mr. Shaw responded that the case was confidential. He stated that he would need to obtain the permission of his clients. On July 2, 1996, Mr. Cousson again telephoned Mr. Shaw. In that conversation, Mr. Shaw stated that the Fears family would not consent to release the case file. According to Mr. Shaw, the Fears family threatened to sue if the file was released. Mr. Cousson responded that he would cure that problem by issuing a subpoena for the file. On July 3, 1996, Petitioner faxed the subpoena to Shaw Investigations, Mitchell D. Shaw, Owner. On July 10, 1996, Mr. Cousson personally served the subpoena on Mr. Shaw in his office. During that visit, Mr. Shaw produced a letter dated July 8, 1996, from Mr. Shaw's attorney. The letter states that the Fears hired Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., to conduct the Fears investigation. According to the letter, Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., was not subject to Petitioner's regulations or subpoena power. The attorney's letter reveals that the Florida agency was hired by the Alabama agency to do some work on the Fears case. However, according to the letter, the work of the Florida agency was completed more than two years prior to the issuance of the subpoena. The letter states the records of the Florida agency were not subject to preservation or disclosure under Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes. Nevertheless, the attorney's letter enclosed two investigative reports, stating that Shaw Investigations was not in possession of any other records that were responsive to the subpoena. The first report, dated July 18, 1994, was prepared by Mr. Tharpe. The second report, dated October 18, 1994, was dictated by Mr. Shaw and typed by Ms. Moulton. At a later date, Mr. Cousson received a copy of a contract between Shaw Investigations and Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. The contract is dated April 14, 1994. According to the contract, the Florida agency was paid to take pictures, interview a witness, and provide a scale diagram of the accident scene for a possible model. Mr. Shaw produced no other documents as responsive to the subpoena. However, he verbally provided Mr. Cousson with the code numbers of the Alabama investigators used on the Fears case. The investigation of the Fears case by Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., was ongoing at the time of the hearing. The entire case file of the Fears investigation is still in existence, including documents generated as a result of the contract between the Florida investigative agency and the Alabama investigative agency. In addition to not providing the subpoenaed investigative files, Mr. Shaw did not provide any records pertaining to the fees and costs paid by the Fears, a list of all personnel employed during the period of April 18, 1994 through June 30, 1995, including the coded list of all employees and payroll records for the period of April 18, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Mr. Shaw did not provide any documents relating to the Florida investigative agency's activities in the Fears investigation other than as set forth above.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Florida licenses of Shaw Investigations and Mitchell D. Shaw for three months, and imposing the maximum fine for Counts I-IV and VII-IX in Case No. 97-0369 and for Counts I-II, IV, and VI-VII in Case No. 98-1761. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1998.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 28, 2002, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator License, number C87-00343, as well as a Class "E" Recovery Agent License, number E87-00046. By Final Order dated January 22, 2002 (Final Order) Petitioner determined that Respondent had conducted or advertised the business of a private investigative agency without a valid Class A license, and had performed the services of a private investigator after his Class C private investigator license had been suspended. Baro was fined for this conduct, and ordered to cease and desist from such activities until such time as he was properly licensed. Baro did not appeal the Final Order. Baro subsequently violated the Final Order by advertising his availability to serve as a private investigator in Palm Beach County, Florida, without first obtaining the requisite licensure. On or about January 14, 2002, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent subcontracted investigative work to CTC International Group, a licensed Florida investigative agency. At that time, Baro did not have a Florida private investigative agency license. In July, 2001, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Baro was working for Mrs. William LeNeve, who was embroiled in a contentious divorce. Baro's services to Mrs. LeNeve included concealing her whereabouts from her husband. Desperate for money, Baro approached Mr. LeNeve and offered to switch sides and help locate Mr. LeNeve’s wife and children for a price to be agreed upon. By way of defense, Baro contends that Petitioner is conducting a "vendetta" because, "[O]pposing Counsel did not appreciate my telling him years ago that I thought what they did to me then amounted to nothing short of extortion." See Baro's letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated April 8, 2003. In a letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated March 14, 2002, Baro asserted, "I know that we can clearly show that the states(sic)case is unjust and that Mr. Bensko's only motivation is a personal vendetta. I would very much like the opportunity to prove that." Baro made no attempt to back up the claim of improper motivation. To be clear, the record--both before and after Baro was represented by counsel--is completely devoid of any evidence that the Petitioner has acted improperly, or is improperly motivated with respect to Baro.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Class "C" Private Investigator License and the Class "E" Recovery Agent License, held by Respondent be revoked and that he be fined $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 6th day of May, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient experience in private investigative work to qualify her for licensure as a Class "C" private investigator under Section 493,306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Findings Of Fact In July, 1980, Applicant applied for a Class "C" license as a private detective. By letter dated April 9, 1981, the Department denied the requested license solely on the ground that she failed to meet the minimum "2 years experience and/or training" requirement of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980. 2/ The Department concedes that, except for her alleged lack of investigative experience, she is qualified for the requested license. (Stipulation of counsel; R-1, R-2) Since 1973, Applicant has engaged in the business of furnishing for- hire private investigative services under the name of ABC Locating Service, a business located in Orange Park, Florida. She started the business as a modest venture; she was unaware that a private investigator's license was required and was also unsure of her ability to conduct private investigations. (Testimony of Applicant.) Over the years, her small and tentative investigation agency has grown into a substantial business. Since January, 1978, she has conducted more than 200 private investigations; from 1979 to 1980, her investigations consumed over 5,000 hours. The gross receipts from her investigative work exceeded $8,400 during 1978 and $12,100 during 1979. If issued a license by the Department, she plans to expand her activities and relocate her business to a commercial office building. 3/ (Testimony of Applicant; P-3) In the operation of her business, Applicant has conducted numerous private investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to: (a) the identify, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, and character of persons; (b) the credibility of witnesses and other persons; (c) the whereabouts of missing persons; (d) the location of lost or stolen property; and (e) the preparation and trial of civil or criminal cases. 4/ Several typical investigations are described below: February, 1977; Criminal Investigation (four weeks): A mother hired Applicant to investigate son's arrest on shoplifting charges. Applicant questioned merchant about incident and investigated behavior and past records of son's accomplices; investigation revealed that client's son had a peripheral role in crime and resulted in his receiving a probationary sentence rather than imprisonment. December, 1979; Criminal Investigation (nine months): A teenager hired Applicant to investigate the circumstances surrounding his conviction on drug-related charges and placement in the Lancaster Correctional Institution for a six-year term. She investigated witnesses and police officers, examined court records, and identified conflicting accounts of the incident. The evidence she gathered was presented to a court, and resulted in her client's release and placement on five years' probation. August, 1977 Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant visited subject's place of employment, questioned his coworkers and placed under surveillance the bar which he commonly frequented. Eventually, the subject visited the bar and left in the company of a female with whom he spent the night. This information, with photographs, was presented to Applicant's client and led to a dissolution of the marriage. November, 1980; Surveillance Investigation (four weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband. After questioning the subject's friends and placing him under surveillance, Applicant gathered evidence indicating that he was having an illicit relation- ship with another woman and using heavy drugs. August, 1977; Missing Person Investigation (approximately ten days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing daughter. Applicant inter- viewed subject's friends, checked popular gathering places for teenagers, and eventually located her daughter at a local movie theater. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (three days): A wife hired Applicant to investigate conduct, habits, and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant placed him under surveillance and discovered that he was suffering from a serious drinking problem. February, 1979; Missing Person Investigation (three days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing 12-year-old son. Applicant found the subject by visiting his school and interrogating his friends and classmates. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A mother hired Applicant to locate and identify an individual who was selling illicit drugs to her son. With the assistance of the Orange Park Police Department, Applicant conducted a joint undercover investigation; she made a "buy" using marked money which resulted in the drug dealer's arrest and conviction. (Testimony of Harvey, Kosobud, Franasiak, Rose; P-3.) On several occasions, Applicant worked closely with and assisted Sergeant Mike Probst, Orange Park Police Department, in recovering stolen property and locating missing persons. Information which she gave to Sergeant Probst resulted in several drug arrests and convictions. (Testimony of Applicant; P-2.) Prior to opening ABC Locating Service, Applicant applied for and obtained a Clay County occupational license to engage in business as a clairvoyant. (She testified that she has unique psychic abilities which have sometimes proven helpful in locating missing persons.) Although she still has a clairvoyant license, she has little time available to practice that occupation; almost all of her energies are devoted to her investigation service. The two occupations are unrelated in that when she occasionally practices as a clairvoyant, she operates out of a separate building and keeps a separate set of business records. (Testimony of Applicant.) As part of her second application for a private investigator's license, Applicant executed an Affidavit of Experience (on a one-page Department form) attesting that she had conducted over 400 private investigations in the last three years; that those investigations involved locating missing persons, checking the background of employees and in-laws, recovering stolen property, investigating thefts, and aiding in the defense of accused persons. In an effort to supply additional specific information, she attached a 4 1/2 page, single-spaced description of 17 separate private investigations she had conducted from 1977 to 1980. In spite of this seemingly ample description and substantiation of her investigative experience, the Department concluded that "according to [its] . . . investigative report, you [Applicant] do not meet the [experience] requirements" for licensure. (R-1, R-2.) Yet, at hearing, the Department presented no investigator, no investigative report, no witnesses, and no evidence to rebut or controvert the testimony of Applicant. The only affirmative position taken by the Department was that the burden was on Applicant to demonstrate investigative experience sufficient for licensure under Chapter 493, Part 1, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue Applicant a private investigator's Class "C" license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating the law regulating private investigators and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License bearing license number is C91-00006. Petitioner's files indicate that this license was issued January 10, 1991. Respondent testified that he has been licensed since December 1990. Despite records indicating that the Class "C" license was issued January 10, 1991, Petitioner, by letter dated May 24, 1991, informed Respondent that his Class "C" license "has been issued and is forthcoming." The May 24 letter adds: File review indicates that you are not currently employed. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, requires you to either own or be employed by a licensed Class "A" Private Investigative Agency. To work as a private investigator without meeting one of the foregoing conditions is a violation of law and subjects you to administrative action up to and including revocation of your Class "C" license. During 1991, Respondent was employed by A & W Investigations, which holds a Class "A" agency license. However, by July 7, 1991, he had completed his duties for A & W Investigations and was not employed by a Class "A" agency after that date. During the period between the termination of his employment with A & W Investigations and the meeting described below with Petitioner's investigator in October 1991, Respondent performed investigations related to workers' compensation for a company known as FEISCO. Serving as an independent contractor, Respondent also hired and paid James Coady for investigative work that he performed on Respondent's behalf for FEISCO. In August 1991, a new attorney in the area, Darren Young, received a letter from Respondent announcing his availability to serve as a consultant in criminal cases involving allegations of driving under the influence (DUI). Respondent had been employed for a couple of years by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and drew upon his experience in local law enforcement in providing DUI consultation services. Respondent and Mr. Young later met and began a business/social relationship. In October or November, Mr. Young hired Respondent as a DUI consultant in a pending case. Respondent served as an independent contractor, not an employee of Mr. Young. Although Mr. Young did not need Respondent to testify, he paid Respondent for his services. By letter dated September 23, 1991, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had learned that he was no longer employed by A & W Investigations as a Class "C" Private Investigator licensee. The letter contains the same warning as that quoted in the last two sentences of the above-cited May 24 letter. In early October 1991, an investigator of Petitioner met Respondent to discuss informal complaints made by two or three Naples private investigators that Respondent was conducting private investigations without a license. Respondent told the investigator that he was working for a tile company association doing investigations of its members and serving as an expert witness for attorneys in DUI cases. Petitioner's investigator explained that if Respondent intended to do any private investigations, he needed a Class "A" agency license with which to place his Class "C" private investigator's license. At the urging of Petitioner's investigator, Respondent agreed to begin the process of obtaining a Class "A" license, and, on October 3, 1991, Petitioner received Respondent's application for a Class "A" license. On December 26, 1991, Respondent obtained the general liability coverage required for the Class "A" license. By letter dated December 27, 1991, and received by Petitioner on January 6, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a money order in the amount of $300 in payment of the application fee, proof of liability insurance, and a copy of the fictitious name registration form. The letter states in part: I have contacted your office several times and have been informed that my fingerprints have not returned from FDLE. This is the only thing that I am waiting for before my license can be issued. The 90 days will be up in January and I was wondering if there is some provision that would allow me to start operations before they return. I would appreciate your advice on this matter. Prior to receiving the December 27 letter from Respondent, on January 3, 1992, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter "to notify you that your application for a Class "A" license had been approved." The letter states that Respondent needed to provide several items "so your license can be issued " The required items were a license fee of $300, certificate of insurance, and proof of filing a fictitious name. On January 8, 1992, Respondent mailed two letters. One was to Petitioner's investigator, stating that Respondent had "received the notice of approval for the issuance of my Agency license" and advising that he had "forwarded all of the required documentation to Tallahassee." The other letter of January 8, 1992, was to Petitioner and accompanies the certificate of liability insurance. The letter states that, on December 30, 1991, Respondent had sent Petitioner the application fee, copy of the fictitious name registration, and copy of the insurance binder. Petitioner received the certificate of liability insurance on January Noting that the certificate was not properly notarized, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter, on January 15, 1992, advising that the certificate of liability insurance was missing. By letter dated January 16, 1992, Respondent forwarded the certificate of liability insurance with proper notarization. Receiving the letter on January 22, 1992, Petitioner mailed a letter on January 24, 1992, advising Respondent that he had been issued on that date a Class "A" license, which was good from January 24, 1992, through January 24, 1994. Respondent engaged in at least two investigations during December 1991, at which time he clearly knew that he did not have a Class "A" license and needed one for the work in which he was engaged. In one case, he performed two days' surveillance on Kelly Trotta for Ray Trotta on December 6 and 7, 1991. By letter dated December 9, 1991, to Mr. Trotta, Respondent described the investigatory services that he provided and suggested future spot checks in order to avoid "running up the costs of the investigation." In another case, Mr. Young was retained on the day after Thanksgiving 1991 by Lawrence Harrison to provide legal services in connection with pending federal and state litigation. Mr. Young introduced Respondent to Mr. Harrison, who agreed to retain Respondent or allow Mr. Young to retain Respondent, in either case as an independent contractor. According to Respondent's invoice, Mr. Young hired him on December 16, 1991. The following day, Respondent checked corporate records as part of his investigative work and conveyed the information to Mr. Young. In the following days, Respondent researched Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, concerning the state litigation, which involved a legal action brought by Frank Coto against Mr. Harrison for unpaid private investigative services. Respondent drafted a complaint against Mr. Coto to be sent to Petitioner. Still in December, Respondent obtained character information on Mr. Coto and directly communicated it to the client. The complaint against Mr. Coto included allegations that he attempted to extort from Mr. Harrison the balance allegedly owed by Mr. Harrison to Mr. Coto for investigative services rendered. Mr. Harrison sent the complaint, under his signature, to Petitioner, which eventually elected not to prosecute. On January 9 and 10, 1992, according to Respondent's invoice of January 13, 1993, Respondent met with Mr. Harrison. By separate invoice, Respondent requested $1200 for the costs of a trip to Oklahoma in connection with investigative services related to the federal litigation. This sum was paid prior to January 24, 1992, which was when Respondent was to depart. On or about January 18, 1992, Mr. Young terminated his employment with Mr. Harrison. On January 23, 1992, Respondent contacted the FBI and informed them that Mr. Young had proposed a criminal conspiracy with Respondent to kill one or more persons involved with the Harrison matter. Subsequent investigations revealed no basis for criminal prosecution, nor professional discipline, against Mr. Young. The record is insufficient to determine if Respondent's charges were made in good faith. Instead of going himself, Respondent sent Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to perform investigative services for Respondent on behalf of Mr. Harrison. They departed either January 24 or 25, 1991, and performed the investigative services. There is no competent evidence as to whether Mr. Coady had a Class "C" license and, if so, when he obtained it. The evidence is unclear as to when Mr. Trotta obtained his Class "C: license, but he obtained or renewed a Class "C" license, possibly as early as January 23, 1994. Respondent allowed Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to place their Class "C" licenses, or the Class "C" licenses for which they were applying. The record establishes the date of sponsorship only as to Mr. Trotta. Respondent signed the form on January 5 and it was notarized on January 7, 1992. Respondent used his Class "A" license number, which he obtained by telephone from one of Petitioner's representatives prior to the official issuance of Respondent's Class "A" license. On March 4, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner advising that his firm was no longer sponsoring Mr. Trotta, Mr. Coady, or a third person, Heidi Trotta. Except for this letter, there is no evidence that Respondent ever employed Ms. Trotta, and Petitioner has failed to prove that anyone by that name was ever so employed by Respondent. The letter states that, as of January 30, 1992, Respondent's firm would no longer be responsible for their actions. The record does not indicate when Mr. Trotta and Mr. Coady were terminated. On August 11, 1992, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office and demanded his files for the Harrison and Trotta investigation, as well as a third investigation known as Sparkman/Hayes. Respondent offered to drive home and get the Trotta and Sparkman/Hayes files, but declined to provide the Harrison file until he received approval from Mr. Harrison's attorney, through whom he claimed to work. Petitioner's investigator told Respondent not to go home and get the two files, but to provide them to the investigator later. Respondent agreed to mail them, but did not. Petitioner's investigator never gave Respondent a deadline, nor did he ever again demand that Respondent give him the files. The failure to produce the Harrison file is not the subject of any allegations in the present case. During the course of the August 11 interview, Petitioner's investigator asked Respondent about Mr. Coto and the complaint that had been filed with Petitioner against him. Respondent initially lied, denying knowing anything about Mr. Coto or the complaint. But Petitioner's investigator showed Respondent a letter that Respondent had sent to Mr. Young, which effectively contradicted these denials. Respondent then admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he had drafted the complaint against Mr. Coto and that it had been intended to "muddy the waters." The intent of Respondent was to undermine Mr. Coto's civil action against Mr. Harrison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order ordering Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $3550. ENTERED on June 24, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 on June 24, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Attorney Ken Muszynski 850 Fifth Ave. South Naples, FL 33940
Findings Of Fact In 1993, Respondent Carl Clausen, along with some acquaintences, was interested in opening a private investigative business or becoming associated with a private investigative agency. Mr. Clausen had an extensive background in police investigative and security work and was well qualified to be licensed as a private investigator. In pursuit of getting into the business of private investigations, Mr. Clausen attended a business recruiting meeting held by a private investigative company on March 19, 1993. Ms. Bronson, owner of Prosearch International, then the holder of a valid Class A Private Investigative Agency license, also attended the meeting where she met Respondent. After the meeting, Ms. Bronson and Respondent discussed various ways he might became associated with her investigative agency in order to expand the services Prosearch could offer potential clients. These discussions included buying part or all of Prosearch. At some point after the recruiting meeting, Ms. Gentry, a local attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, was appointed to represent a man accused of murder in Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida. Ms. Gentry felt the defense team needed an experienced investigator who could effectively work within a predominately minority community in Quincy. Ms. Gentry contacted Ed Rawls about possibly working the case. However, Mr. Rawls was a reserve Gadsden County Sheriff's Deputy, and had an obvious conflict in investigating the case for Ms. Gentry. Mr. Rawls recommended Mr. Clausen as a potential investigator. Ms. Gentry called Mr. Clausen on March 24, 1993, and requested that he come the next day for an interview. On March 25, 1993, Mr. Clausen asked Ms. Bronson to meet him for lunch to discuss her employing him as an intern private investigator. An intern private investigator holds a Class "CC" license once the sponsorship becomes effective. Eventually, the intern can obtain a Class "C" investigative license. Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson met for lunch and Ms. Bronson agreed to sponsor Mr. Clausen. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Bronson about his scheduled meeting with Ms. Gentry. Soon after the meeting, Ms. Bronson left town to take care of some personal matters. After lunch, Mr. Clausen went directly to Ms. Gentry's office for the meeting she had scheduled. Ms. Gentry interviewed Respondent to determine whether he had the experience and ability to perform the investigation she felt was necessary to prepare for her client's murder trial. Ms. Gentry discussed some general details of the case with Respondent in order to more fully assess Respondent's abilities to investigate her case should the Respondent become licensed as an investigator. Respondent did not receive the case file from Ms. Gentry, nor did Respondent receive information such as addresses which would have enabled him to begin an investigation. Ms. Gentry felt that Mr. Clausen was very well qualified. At the initial meeting Respondent made it very clear to Ms. Gentry that he would not begin any investigation until he was properly licensed or could conduct the investigation under one of the exemption categories in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, such as an employee for an attorney. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry he was not at present in business as a private investigator, but that he wanted to be and was working on the prospect. However, Ms. Gentry did not want to deal with the paperwork or potential liability of an employment relationship with Mr. Clausen. Therefore, Mr. Clausen needed to become licensed as quickly as possible so that the investigation could begin. Respondent and Ms. Gentry met again on March 30, 1993. However, the meeting contered on the quickest way Respondent could become licensed as an investigator. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry that his license would most likely be in order April 2, 1993, when Ms. Bronson, through Prosearch, would return to formalize his application at the Department of State for the internship. In short, Mr. Clausen would have a Class "CC" license. Prior to licensure as a Class "C" or "CC" licensee, Respondent did not advertise or solicit any investigative business on his behalf. Respondent only participated in an employment interview for future employment after he was licensed and discussed various methods of becoming legally able to pursue Ms. Gentry's case. Likewise no investigation was begun prior to his licensure. On April 2, 1993, Ms. Bronson filed Respondent's sponsorship papers and Respondent filed an application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Because of the sponsorship, Respondent was employed by Prosearch International, a Class "A" private investigative agency, under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Ms. Bronson furnished Mr. Clausen with letters of introduction and appointment as her investigator. These letters were given to Ms. Gentry and a contract for services was entered into. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Gentry met with Mr. Clausen at her office where he was furnished with names, addresses, physical evidence and access to Ms. Gentry's case file. The case file contained police reports and probable cause affidavits on the case. Ms. Gentry requested Mr. Clausen to proceed immediately with the investigation. Mr. Clausen began the investigation on the morning of April 7, 1993, by interviewing the defendant in jail. Around April 21, 1993, Prosearch presented its first invoice for services to Ms. Gentry. The invoice contained charges for Mr. Clausen's meetings on March 25 and 30, 1993. However, the charges were not for investigative services. Ms. Gentry felt it was appropriate for Prosearch to bill for those hours even though she was aware no investigative work had begun and she had no contract with Respondent or Prosearch until April 6, 1993. Thereafter, Gadsden County paid the first invoice to ProSearch. Aroung May 7, 1993, ProSearch submitted a second invoice to Ms. Gentry. The investigation and report were completed and delivered by Ms. Bronson to Ms. Gentry's office around June 22, 1993. Both Ms. Gentry and Ms. Bronson praised Mr. Clausen's investigation and report as excellent. From March 25, 1993, to July 3 or 4, 1993, discussions between Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson regarding the future organization and market strategy for ProSearch or another business occurred almost daily. At the July meeting it became clear that Ms. Bronson had decided to associate with two others and gave Mr. Clausen a ProSearch check for his commission on the first invoice. On July 6, 1993, Ms. Bronson sent letters firing Mr. Clausen and notifying the Division that she would no longer sponsor Mr. Clausen. However, there was still billable time for investigative services outstanding for the investigation for Ms. Gentry. Additionally, Mr. Clausen was due his commission for those hours. Ms. Bronson said she had no money to pay wages or workman's compensation and therefore did not have funds to pay Mr. Clausen's his commission or expenses. Anxious to resolve the situation and not having contact with Ms. Bronson, Mr. Clausen submitted a final invoice on Specialty Security Services, Inc., letterhead to Gadsden County. The invoice referenced the first and second ProSearch invoices, showing the first invoice as paid and the second invoice as unpaid. The Gadsden County Commission approved and paid the invoice. Mr. Clausen used Special Security Services, Inc., letterhead because his word processor is programmed to always include the "Special Security Services, Inc." (SSS) letterhead. Otherwise, Special Security Services, had no role in this matter and should be dismissed as a party. Further, none of Mr. Clausen's activities violates Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Respondent should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not violated Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 1C-3.122(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 94-0853 The facts contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Petitioner's Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The statements contained in paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The statement contained in paragraph 3, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are either introductory or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John Wardlow Attorney at Law Post Office Box 84 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's rule challenge petition should be dismissed for failure to present issues that meet the requirements of Sections 120.56(1), 120.56(3), and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, whether Respondent is entitled to an award of costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Sections 120.569(2)(e), 120.595(3), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator license on or about May 15, 2000. By letter dated September 5, 2000, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application for a Class "C" license as a private investigator was denied. The letter stated as follows in relevant part: Failure to qualify under Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. You have not demonstrated the necessary lawfully gained, verifiable, full-time experience or appropriate training. Your application is therefore being denied. Petitioner filed a request for an administrative hearing with Respondent on or about September 13, 2000. He filed an amended request for hearing with Respondent on or about September 15, 2000. On September 27, 2000, Respondent issued an Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend. This order referenced Rule 28-106.201(2), Florida Administrative Code, and found that Petitioner's hearing request was substantially deficient because it did not contain the following: An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interest will be affected by the agency determination; A statement of disputed issues of material fact. The Petitioner has not disputed the material facts at issue in this case; which is whether the Petitioner provided the Division with information which the Division could then verify. Verification is achieved by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work. Petitioner provided information concerning former employers in the Affidavit of Experience section of the application. After submitting the application, Petitioner submitted an affidavit from an investigator, however that investigator was not Petitioner's employer and therefore not in the position to verify Petitioner's experience. For the first time, in Petitioner's requests for a hearing, Petitioner submits information concerning a former career in executive recruiting consisting of an affidavit, notarized in Maryland, of a former co- worker. This information was never provided to the Division and is not listed anywhere on the application submitted by Petitioner nor is there any way to verify any of the information in that affidavit as the affiant's address and telephone number are not provided. In his petitions for hearing Petitioner has raised only legal issues which are not legally the forum of a formal administrative hearing. Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes . . . . A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action . . . . (Emphasis added) Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend also determined that: (a) Petitioner's hearing requests improperly mixed rule validity challenge arguments for Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, proceedings with disputed material fact arguments for proceedings under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes; (b) Petitioner's argument that his Juris Doctorate training and related legal work experience met the statutory requirements of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes, was a statutory construction/legal argument presented in the guise of factual issues; (c) The Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to decide constitutional validity arguments in a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding; and (d) Petitioner's argument that he is entitled to licensure by default due to the failure of the agency to meet the 90-day time requirement of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, is a legal issue in light of the tolling provision of Section 493.6108, Florida Statutes. In a footnote to the Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, Respondent referred to two documents that Respondent attached as a courtesy to Petitioner. The first document was Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50. This letter responded to a specific inquiry, determining that an attorney, who was not a member of the Florida Bar and who wanted to perform sub-contract investigative work for a licensed private investigation agency, was not exempt under Section 493.6102(6), Florida Statutes, from having to separately qualify for "C" licensure requirements. The second document was Respondent's internal memorandum, identified herein as Opinion No. 92-4. This memorandum determined that legal training and work experience of attorneys do not automatically qualify them for a Class "C" license. Instead, each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis. On October 10, 2000, Petitioner filed his Request for Formal Administrative Hearing, citing Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, as authority to challenge certain of Respondent's rules and statements defined as rules. Petitioner claims that Respondent routinely applies heightened scrutiny to applications submitted by attorneys, persons who are qualified to be attorneys, or others who have research and investigative skills but no actual police or criminal justice experience. Petitioner's hearing request first argues that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, together with its attachments, all of which are referenced above, set forth policies having the effect of rules. In Petitioner's "First Rule Challenge," he argues that Respondent's interpretation of the time limitations for processing license applications in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, together with Respondent's interpretation of the tolling provisions of Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, constitute a rule. Petitioner concludes that Respondent is without delegated legislative authority to extend the 90-day application processing time of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, unless Respondent does not receive the fingerprint investigation report required by Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, prior to the expiration of the 90-day processing period. Petitioner's "Second Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4, a memorandum dated January 23, 1992, constitutes a rule because: (a) Respondent uses the opinion to define the "practice of law"; and (b) Respondent relies on the opinion in refusing to recognize experience gained by lawyers in the practice of their profession unless the lawyer was engaged in "full-time investigative work." However, Respondent concludes by acknowledging that the opinion recommends a case-by-case analysis of each attorney's application to determine whether the attorney has the experience and training required by Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's "Third Rule Challenge" also argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4 constitutes a rule. According to Petitioner, Respondent relies on the opinion to find that an attorney, even if a member of the Florida Bar, lacks creditable "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration." See Section 493.6203(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner concludes that Respondent does not have authority to interpret the meaning of the statutory term, "related to," so narrowly. Petitioner's hearing request did not include a "Fourth Rule Challenge." Petitioner's "Fifth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50, dated October 20, 1992, is an unpromulgated rule. Petitioner claims that Respondent relies on this opinion to set broad policy concerning the agency's treatment of the experience and educational qualification of unlicensed attorneys. Petitioner states that the opinion infringes on the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Bar. Petitioner asserts that he is substantially affected because he is an unlicensed attorney. Petitioner's "Sixth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend is an unpromulgated rule. Specifically, Petitioner claims Respondent created a rule by refusing to credit applicants with work experience that is not "verifiable by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work." According to Petitioner, Respondent has no authority to establish such an agency specific meaning of the common term, "verifiable experience." Petitioner's "Seventh Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent has adopted a special meaning for the term "private investigation" which contravenes the statute. Petitioner takes issue with Respondent's interpretation of "private investigation" as defined in Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes. Petitioner also challenges Respondent's interpretation of the experience requirement of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has withdrawn his "Eighth Rule challenge" regarding the validity of Rule 1C-3.100(3)(a), Florida Administrative.
