The Issue Petitioner seeks to have the title to a specific motor vehicle cancelled and reissued to himself. The title at issue is currently in the name of John W. Klingerman. The central issue before the Hearing Officer is whether the title at issue was "improperly issued" by the Department so as to require cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. It was clear from the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner that the disposition of this case might adversely affect the substantial interests of John W. Klingerman, the person to whom the disputed certificate of title is presently issued. Accordingly, an order was issued requiring that Mr. Klingerman be notified of the pendency of this case and of his right to file a petition to intervene in this case. Mr. Klingerman was so notified more than two months prior to the final hearing in this case. Mr. Klingerman did not seek to participate in this case. The only witness at the hearing was the Petitioner. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were received in evidence by stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 10 were received in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was received with the caveat that it might later be disregarded by the Hearing Officer if, upon further consideration of the issues, the Hearing Officer determined it was not relevant. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the admission into evidence of Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 13 were rejected, but Petitioner was permitted to proffer them for inclusion in the record as rejected exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 was withdrawn by Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was received in evidence. Rulings on Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 9 and 12 Upon consideration of all of the legal issues in this case, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law hereinafter, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12 are irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the objections to those two exhibits are sustained and both exhibits will be treated as rejected exhibits proffered for inclusion in the record. Upon further consideration, it is also clear that Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, even though Exhibit 9 has been received in evidence, no findings of fact have been based on that exhibit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony presented at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During November of 1986, Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service embarked upon the process of enforcing a mechanic's lien on Petitioner's 1963 Ford Stationwagon, vehicle identification number 3T24F155323 (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner's vehicle.") The owner of Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service arranged for the paperwork regarding the mechanic's lien to be handled by an agent, Title Clearing Service. Title Clearing Service is operated by John Boesch and Carol Boesch. On November 21, 1986, John Boesch mailed a document titled Notice of Claim of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle to Petitioner at two different addresses. The documents were sent via certified mail. Both of the documents were returned to John Boesch because they were not delivered to the Petitioner. The documents mailed on November 21, 1986, contain all of the information itemized at Section 713.585(1)(a) through (i), Florida Statutes. On December 17, 1986, a notice of sale was published in the Fort Myers News-Press, a newspaper circulated in Lee County, Florida. The notice published in the newspaper read, in its entirety, as follows: LEGAL NOTICE OF SALE Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service, 5371 McGreagor Blvd., Fort Myers, Florida 33907 will hold a private sale on the following vehicle to satisfy lien pursuant to Chapter 713:585 of Florida Statue (sic) on January 5, 1987, at 8 a.m. 1963 Ford SW VIN #3T24F155323 Amount of Lien $2,027.95 (813) 549-0631 Dec. 17 No. 5247 Thereafter, on January 5, 1987, a private sale was conducted at which time John W. Klingerman purchased Petitioner's vehicle from Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service for $200.00. On January 13, 1987, John W. Klingerman applied to the Respondent for issuance of a certificate of title in his name, based on his purchase at the January 5, 1987, sale. On January 30, 1987, the Respondent issued a certificate of title to Petitioner's vehicle described above to John W. Klingerman of 1824 Coronado Road, Ft. Myers, Florida 323901-7008. Title Number 43916166 issued by the Respondent now shows John W. Klingerman as the owner of the 1963 Ford stationwagon bearing vehicle identification number 3T24F155323. The issuance of the certificate of title to John W. Klingerman was in reliance upon the application for certificate of title filed by John W. Klingerman and various supporting documents. The supporting documents included a copy of the certificate of compliance and the report of sale certified by the clerk of the court. Other supporting documents certified by the clerk of the court included copies of the Affidavit of Publication, the Notice Of Claim Of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle, the vehicle repair order, and envelopes reflecting efforts to mail notices to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's vehicle was previously titled in the state of South Carolina.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issue a final order in this case cancelling certificate of title number 43916166 issued to John W. Klingerman and that the Department thereafter notify John W. Klingerman of the cancellation of the certificate as provided in Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 22nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2613 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The paragraph numbers below correspond to the paragraph numbers of the parties' proposed findings. Rulings on Petitioners Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with exception of vehicle identification number, which is incomplete. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is accepted in substance, i.e., that publication of the notice was less than 20 days prior to scheduled sale and the newspaper publication contained insufficient information. Paragraph 8: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last sentence is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 9: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last two sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Entire paragraph rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 11: Entire paragraph rejected as primarily constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact. To the limited extent this paragraph contains factual matter, it is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted with exception of proposed purchase date. Greater weight of the evidence shows purchase date as January 5, 1987. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, but with most details omitted as irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 8: First sentence rejected as not fully consistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence rejected as argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Mr. Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, an employee of Vanguard Security and the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. Vanguard Security (hereinafter referred to as "Vanguard") is an agency which provides armed and unarmed security services to its clients. Vanguard has a written policy prohibiting the display and use of firearms by its security officers except where such conduct is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm. Vanguard also has a written policy forbidding its security officers from leaving their assigned posts while they are on duty. These written policies are set forth in an employee handbook that all employees of the agency are given. On the evening of October 25, 1993, Respondent was assigned to provide armed security services in a warehouse area in Dade County, Florida. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening Andrea Ramsey was walking her friend's unleashed dog, a Doberman pinscher named "Chewy," in the vicinity of the warehouse area Respondent was responsible for guarding (hereinafter referred to as Respondent's "post" or "posted area"). Chewy's owner, Eileen Escardo, was working late in her photography studio which was located across the street from Respondent's post. Respondent saw Ramsey from afar. His suspicions aroused, he walked toward her to investigate. Respondent left his posted area and started to cross the street that separated the posted area from the warehouse in which Escardo's photography studio was located. When he was approximately 20 feet from Ramsey, he asked her if Chewy, who was by a tree to her left, was her dog. Ramsey responded in the affirmative. Chewy then, in a leisurely manner, headed toward Ramsey and Respondent. Although Chewy was moving in Respondent's direction, he did so in a manner that did not reasonably suggest that he was going to attack Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent panicked. Contrary to his employer's written policies regarding the display and discharge of firearms, he drew his revolver and, when Chewy was approximately three or four feet away from him, fired the weapon, but without any intention of shooting the dog or Ramsey. The bullet hit and shattered the glass door of the business next to Escardo's photography studio. Fortunately, no one was hurt or injured. Ramsey screamed when Respondent fired his revolver. Escardo heard her friend's scream, as well as the shot that preceded it. She rushed out of her studio to see what had happened. Escardo saw Ramsey standing in the middle of the street, with Respondent nearby holding a revolver. After instructing Ramsey to call the police, Escardo walked toward Respondent. Pointing his revolver at Escardo, Respondent warned her to stay away from him. Despite the warning, Escardo, who was unarmed, continued to approach Respondent until she was close enough to push him and the revolver aside. She then turned around and walked toward her studio to wait for the police.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violations of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in alleged Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his Class "G" statewide firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of July, 1994. _ STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of July, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed an act of violence against, or wrongfully detained, Beatrix Shadwell and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "D" Security Officer license, Number D93- 16229, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license, Number G93- 03349. On March 2, 1996, Respondent's wife telephoned the Collier County Sheriff Office from a convenience store and asked for assistance. A deputy was dispatched to the convenience store to talk to her. Respondent's wife was distraught when the deputy arrived. She said that she was afraid that something was wrong with her husband. She told the deputy that he had shot a gun when she had left the house and she was afraid that he had shot himself. In response to questioning, Respondent's wife, who had redness around her throat and small cuts on her hands, admitted that she and her husband had had an argument. The deputy accompanied Respondent's wife to her home. He searched the house without finding Respondent, although he found several guns, including some loaded. He then questioned Respondent's wife more closely. According to the deputy, Respondent's wife admitted that her husband had physically abused her by grabbing her by the throat, handcuffing her, taping her mouth closed, and putting a gun to her head and threatening to kill her. The deputy took a sworn statement to this effect by writing down what Respondent's wife said and having her sign it. Respondent's wife testified that nothing happened except that she and her husband had an argument. She claimed that her written statement is inaccurate due to her exaggerations and difficulties with English. Respondent's wife is Panamanian and has not resided in the United States for long. She speaks and understands English reasonably well, but not perfectly. While the deputy was speaking with Respondent's wife, Respondent telephoned the house. The deputy ordered him to come home and talk to the deputy. When Respondent returned home, the deputy gave him his Miranda rights and asked him about the incident. Respondent admitted pointing an unloaded weapon at his wife. Petitioner has not proved by clear and convincing evidence all of the facts contained in the statement of Respondent's wife. Her language problems raise some doubt as to the accuracy of the now-repudiated statement. However, Respondent admitted to the deputy that he pointed an empty gun at his wife. This evidence is unrebutted by other evidence because Respondent elected not to testify, and his wife did not discredit this portion of the deputy's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Licensing, Department of State, enter a final order revoking Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses. ENTERED on October 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 19, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. Number 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Steve Edmund Shadwell, pro se 1880 51st St. SW Naples, FL 33999
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 11, 1998, alleges that when Respondent, upon termination of his employment, failed to return his identification card and uniform items to his employing agency, he committed violations of Section 493.6111(5)(c), Florida Statutes, and Section 493.6118 (1)(f), Florida Statutes. The issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed those violations and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul Alan Sangster, holds a class "D" Security Officer License No. D92-16595, effective November 3, 1996. While so licensed, on or about January 8, 1997, Respondent was hired as a security officer by Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. (Southland). Jill Murphy, the human resources director for Southland, hired Respondent and issued him items required for his employment. On January 8, 1997, she issued him a uniform shirt and trousers, a shirt badge and collar brass; on January 17, 1997, she issued him another shirt and an identification card; and on January 24, 1997, she issued him another shirt badge. Each time he was issued uniform items, Respondent signed and dated a uniform inventory sheet with this statement: By affixing my signature below, I am accepting receipt of uniforms and/or equipment for my official use. I understand that I am fully responsible for uniform clothing and/or equipment and will pay the full replacement cost on each item that is not returned when requested. I also understand that this uniform and/or equipment is the sole property of Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. I further agree that within five (5) days of termination of my employment, I shall return the uniforms cleaned and pressed, as I received it, or shall pay the cost of such cleaning and pressing. In the event I fail to return any part of my uniform or any equipment, I agree to pay the company the full replacement cost as indicated above plus all attorney's and collectors fee incurred in the recovering said cost. (Petitioner's Exhibit A) Mrs. Murphy terminated Respondent's employment on or about March 8, 1998. He had told her that he got another job. When Ms. Murphy later tried to reach Respondent, she was told that his phone was disconnected and she was never able to reach him. Respondent never returned the uniform items and identification card to Southland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the agency issue its final order finding that Respondent violated Sections 493.6111(5)(c) and 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, when he failed to return his uniform and identification card to his former employer, and assessing an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Paul Alan Sangster 352 Buttonwood Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Debbie Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Michele Guy, Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether or not the overweight fine and fee for an International Registration Plan (IRP) Trip Permit in the total amount of $1,700.00 assessed Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. by the Department of Transportation was correct under the provisions of Sections 316.545 and 320.0715 F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 17, 1990 Officer David Spencer of the Department of Transportation's Weights Enforcement Division stopped a 1986 GMC "lowboy" trailer at the weight station on SR 9 (I-95) in Yulee, Nassau County, Florida. The vehicle had been proceeding north in the northbound lanes approximately one mile before entering Georgia. When stopped, the GMC trailer was loaded with a Warner & Swasey grade- all, which is heavy machinery, an earth mover. When stopped, the vehicle displayed a Maryland "dealer" tag on the window, accompanied by a State of Maryland registration certificate for Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc., as a dealer. When weighed, the vehicle/load weighed in at 68,400 pounds. The Respondent was allowed 35,000 pounds as a legal weight pursuant to Section 316.545(2)(b) F.S., but the agency assessed five cents per pound of excess weight (68,400 - 35,000 = 33,400 pounds), totalling $1,670.00. The fine, plus a $30.00 statutory fee for an IRP Trip Permit and Temporary Fuel Use Permit was paid to the Department of Transportation (DOT) via Western Union, and the vehicle was issued an IRP Trip Permit and Temporary Fuel Use Permit so that it could complete its trip. The fine/citation was protested by the Respondent, Brandywine Companies, which purports to be a parent company of Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. is the holder of the Maryland dealer tag. The protest was twice denied by the DOT Commercial Vehicle Review Board before the dispute was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Jack Pelham is Bureau Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. In his official capacity, Mr. Pelham is responsible, in part, for oversight of motor vehicle registration in the state of Florida. According to Mr. Pelham's testimony, his agency considers a dealer tag to be sufficient to permit the hauling of automobiles and trucks, but insufficient to authorize hauling heavy equipment such as a grade-all, as was the case here. Based on his agency's interpretation of the reciprocity provisions of Chapter 320 F.S., Mr. Pelham also testified that the Division of Motor Vehicles would still consider Respondent's Maryland dealer tag used for hauling the grade-all in this case to be sufficient compliance with Florida law so as to avoid a fine if there were any competent substantial evidence that Maryland, the state which issued the dealer tag, used its dealer tags to permit the hauling of heavy machinery within its own borders. There was no affirmative demonstration that Maryland's dealer tags permit such heavy duty hauling, and all hearsay evidence admissible for consideration pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S. suggests contrariwise.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commercial Vehicle Review Board of the Department of Transportation enter a final order ratifying the correctness of the imposition of the $1,700.00 fine/fee assessed Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 5 is rejected as unintelligible. 1-4 and 6-7 are accepted as modified. Respondent's PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Rush M. Cox, Jr., Controller Brandywine Companies Routes 301 and 381, Box 68 Brandywine, MD 20613 Charles G. Gardner, Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Case No. 91-3505 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-3505
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the fine remitted for a Load Report Citation, citation number 062459M, for operating a commercial motor vehicle with an expired apportioned tag.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of monitoring commercial motor vehicles driven within the state. In this regard, the Department issues Load Report Citations to vehicles failing to comply with the requirements of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. On April 1, 1997, a vehicle driven by Depriest Ivey, Jr., was issued Load Report Citation number 062459M for operating within Florida with an expired Illinois apportioned tag. Based upon the weight of the vehicle, Mr. Ivey was fined $1,430. Mr. Ivey contested the fine amount and claimed that he had been issued a temporary IRP prior to entering the scales in Old Town, Florida. Mr. Ivey entered the weigh station at Old Town, Florida, at approximately 9:33 a.m., on April 1, 1997. On March 31, 1997, the Illinois apportioned tag used on the vehicle driven by Mr. Ivey expired. At the time of the stop noted above, Mr. Ivey did not possess a valid registration for the vehicle for Florida. After the stop, Mr. Ivey obtained a registration for the vehicle from Landstar Ranger, Inc., via facsimile. By the time Mr. Ivey was able to secure the registration for the vehicle, he had already been operating the vehicle in Florida without a valid registration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's request for a refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 18th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: Ms. Diedre Grubbs Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Room 562 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Depriest Ivey, Jr., President Ivey & Ivey Transport Post Office Box 772118 Coral Springs, Florida 33077
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint in which the Respondent is charged with violations of Sections 493.6118(1)(j), 493.6106(1)(b), 493.6118(1)(t), and 493.6101(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed security officer holding a Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License.1 On May 25, 1996, the Respondent was driving himself and his wife, Tracee Kinlock, to the home of the latter's brother. During the course of that drive an argument began on the subject of whether the Respondent had been seeing another woman. During the course of the argument, Ms. Kinlock became angry about the Respondent's refusal to discuss the subject and began hitting him on the arm and side. The argument continued to escalate, and eventually Ms. Kinlock became so upset that she insisted that the Respondent stop the car and let her get out. The Respondent refused to do so. Eventually, Ms. Kinlock took matters in her own hands and grabbed the gear shift lever and pushed it into the neutral or park position.2 The Respondent told Ms. Kinlock to take her hands off of the gear shift lever and made several efforts to pull her hands off of the lever, but Ms. Kinlock refused to move her hands and refused to release the gear shift lever. The Respondent became so angry or frustrated that he leaned over and bit Ms. Kinlock on the hand. He bit her hard enough to make her cry and release the gear shift. The bite did not draw blood, but it was sufficiently severe to leave visible marks and to cause the hand to swell. After biting Ms. Kinlock, the Respondent was able to put the car in gear and resume driving. When they arrived at the home of Ms. Kinlock's brother, Ms. Kinlock threw her wedding rings at the Respondent, got out of the car, and began walking rapidly towards her brother's home in an effort to get away from the Respondent. The Respondent chased after her, grabbed her from behind, and then swung his foot in a sweeping motion in such a way as to intentionally trip Ms. Kinlock and cause her to fall down. Ms. Kinlock fell to the ground, and the Respondent fell on top of her. Ms. Kinlock's brother immediately pulled the Respondent away from Ms. Kinlock and then restrained the Respondent while Ms. Kinlock went into the house. The police were called and shortly thereafter the Respondent was arrested and charged with the battery of Ms. Kinlock. The Respondent ultimately entered a plea of "no contest" to the charge of battery. Adjudication was withheld on the charge of battery.
Recommendation Pursuant to Rule 1C-3.113(2)(n), Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and Class "G" Statewide Firearm License be revoked pursuant to Section 493.6118(2)(e), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.004(4), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, certified by the CJSTC. At the time relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was acquainted with a person named Terrence Hicks. Mr. Hicks was apparently involved in some business dealings with a Mr. Brichler. In connection with these business dealings, Mr. Brichler had possession of several motorcycles owned by Mr. Hicks. Respondent accessed information regarding Mr. Brichler from a secure Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles DAVID system on two different occasions: Friday, September 26, 2008, and Monday, October 27, 2008. Respondent was not working on any investigation regarding Mr. Brichler at the time he accessed the DAVID system. No traffic citations, field contact cards, or offense reports regarding Mr. Brichler were generated by Respondent or any other deputy. After the second time he accessed the system, on or about November 3, 2008, Respondent went to Mr. Brichler's home to inquire about the motorcycles. Based upon his conversation with Mr. Brichler, Respondent claims that he determined that the dispute between Brichler and Mr. Hicks was civil in nature, and he generated no complaint or paperwork as a result. At the time he visited Mr. Brichler's home, Respondent was off duty. However, he was in uniform and arrived at the home in a marked, county-issued vehicle. Mr. Brichler contacted the Volusia County Sheriff's Office in or about February 2009, stating that Respondent had come to his home in November 2008 and identified himself as Deputy Sanchez. Mr. Brichler claimed in his complaint that the officer coming to his house provided him with a business card bearing the insignia for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office, with the office's address and telephone number. The card had a line stating, "Presented By:" followed by a blank line, with the words Deputy Sheriff written underneath. Written on the blank line was "Deputy Sanchez." According to the police report, there is no Deputy Sanchez that has worked or does work for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. The complaint indicates that Brichler realized that the person identifying himself as Deputy Sanchez was actually Respondent, because he read an article about two deputies that had been arrested for racing motorcycles, and the photograph of one of the deputies was of Respondent, identifying him as Deputy Lopez. He supplied the business card with Deputy Sanchez written on it to Deputy Turner, who investigated his complaint. Respondent admits accessing the DAVID system to gain information on Mr. Brichler, and admits going to his home to ask about the motorcycles. With respect to the business card, Respondent states that it was a blank, generic business card provided by the sheriff's office. Mr. Brichler did not testify in this proceeding. During his interview with Deputy Turner, Respondent denied giving Mr. Brichler a business card with "Deputy Sanchez" written on it. He admitted accessing the DAVID system and going to Mr. Brichler's house.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission enter a Final Order: dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 11-1236PL; finding that Respondent failed to maintain in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c)2.,; and suspending his certification for a period not to exceed five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Omar Lopez Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
