Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Aubrey Moran, who holds a Florida pharmacist's license, No. 0010982, was the managing pharmacist and the dispensing pharmacist at Lake Mary Pharmacy, 185 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Florida, a community pharmacy that holds permit No. 0007301. Half a block away from Lake Mary Pharmacy Robert L. Bevier, M.D., who was then Lake Mary's "principal general practitioner," had his office. COCAINE In the fall of 1981, Dr. Bevier brought respondent an article from a medical journal, which read, as follows: Make Your Own TAC; It Works Well Atlanta--An Atlanta emergency physician has reported good results with a topical anesthetic called TAC made of tetracaine, cocaine, and epinephrine. Dr. Michael Kessler, director of a seminar on Outpatient Surgical Techniques for the Non-Surgeon, said his group at a freestanding emergency clinic sees large numbers of pediatric patients, and TAC has worked well as a topical anesthetic for children as well as adults. The recipe for TAC (taken from the January 1980 Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, according to Kessler) calls for 300 mg. tetracaine hydrochloride powder; one-fourth ounce (7,090 mg.) cocaine flakes; 30 cc 1:1000 inject epinephrine, and distilled water. The tetracaine is dissolved in a small amount of distilled water; the epinephrine and cocaine added; and the mixture combined with distilled water to make 60 cc volume. It should be stored in a brown bottle and has a shelf-life of 21 to 30 days. Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran to compound some of this mixture. Mr. Moran did not keep cocaine in stock ordinarily, but he acquired some from a wholesaler and dispensed 60 cc. amounts of the TAC solution to Dr. Bevier on three occasions. On each occasion Dr. Bevier wrote a prescription for himself on a form on which "AB 8796510" appeared just under his signature. The prescriptions were dated September 8, November 3 and November 23, 1981, and were filled on the dates written, except for the first, which was not filled until September 14, 1981, perhaps because of a delay in obtaining ingredients. Mr. Moran was under the impression that Dr. Bevier was using the solution as a local anesthetic in his practice for procedures like the removal of warts. Solutions of this type are also used to anesthetize mucous membranes. Cocaine in solution with epinephrine is of no use to an abuser. Deposition of Charles L. Park, p. Testimony of Respondent. (T. 112) In early December of 1981, Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran for the TAC ingredients to keep on hold in his office so that he could mix the solution up along, as needed. Mr. Moran's only information about shelf life was what he had read in the article from the medical journal Dr. Bevier had shown him. He did in fact deliver the ingredients to Dr. Bevier, including four quarter ounce packages of cocaine hydrochloride flakes, on December 3, 1982. Dr. Bevier signed the official Drug Enforcement Administration form (DEA 222) required in connection with this transaction, and delivered it to the pharmacy. INVESTIGATOR ARRIVES After the cocaine flake purchases, Will A. Merrill, an investigator for petitioner Department of Professional Regulation visited Mr. Moran in the course of investigating Dr. Bevier. On May 27 and 28, 1982, Mr. Merrill examined respondent's records, and talked to Mr. Moran. Precisely what was said is a matter of dispute. At the very least, Mr. Merrill advised Mr. Moran that irregularities in Dr. Bevier's record keeping regarding Schedule II drugs were being looked into. Cocaine, Demerol (Meperidine) and Dilaudid are all controlled substances, and are listed on Schedule II in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The investigation culminated in an emergency suspension of Dr. Bevier's license to practice medicine on September 12, 1982. Thereafter the investigation of respondents began. DEMEROL AND DILAUDID Lige Williams, a cancer victim, was Dr. Bevier's stepfather. On July 14, 1982, and again on August 2, 1982, Mr. Moran filled prescriptions for Mr. Williams written by Dr. Bevier, each for sixty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol. He dispensed the medicine to Mr. Williams. On August 9, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Dr. Bevier himself came into Lake Mary Pharmacy with a prescription for one hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams on August 13, 1982, and Mr. Moran filled the prescription. On August 16, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a second 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use, again after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Three days later Dr. Bevier presented another prescription for a hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams, which Mr. Moran filled. On August 26 and September 8, 1982, Dr. Bevier signed two more Form 222s and Mr. Moran dispensed two more 20 milliliter ampules of Demerol for office use. Dr. Bevier told Mr. Moran that the Demerol ampules were "primarily . . . for Mr. Williams' use." (T. 103) The parties stipulated that Mr. Moran dispensed another fifty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol at some time "from or about May 1, 1981 until August 30, 1982" to unspecified person(s) under unspecified circumstances. On September 9, 1982, Mr. Moran filled a prescription Dr. Bevier wrote and personally presented for Lige Williams for 100 four milligram tablets of Dilaudid. When Mr. Moran questioned the quantity of tablets, Dr. Bevier said that Lige Williams was leaving Lake Mary to go back to his own home and that he "want[ed] him to have enough tablets to get him up there and hold him until he can be seen by a physician up there." (T. 93) Dilaudid and Demerol in the sequence and dosages to be inferred from the prescriptions Mr. Moran filled for Mr. Williams, even assuming Mr. Williams received the full contents of all four ampules, are commonly and appropriately prescribed for terminally ill cancer patients, according to the uncontroverted medical testimony.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaints filed against respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. C. Hutchison, Jr., Esq. Hutchison & Mamele 230 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether there was just cause to terminate Respondent’s annual employment contract during the term of the contract.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades kindergarten through 12) in Charlotte County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school-aged children in the county. Art. IX, § (4)b, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2016). During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner employed Respondent as a classroom teacher working pursuant to an annual contract. Between the years 1986 through 2000, Respondent worked as an educator for the School District of Hillsborough County, Florida. During the late 1990s, Respondent had multiple surgeries on her lungs and jaw. Respondent was prescribed various pain medications following her surgeries, and unfortunately she became addicted to the medication. Around 1998, Respondent’s addiction to pain medication caused her to engage in criminal activity (i.e. attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud), which resulted in her arrest. Respondent, at the time of her arrest in 1998, was employed as a teacher by the Hillsborough County School District. As a result of her arrest, Respondent resigned from employment with the Hillsborough County School District. Additionally, the Florida Department of Education (DOE) was notified of Respondent’s arrest and as a result thereof suspended Respondent’s teaching certificate for two months, imposed a two-year probationary period, and required Respondent to submit to substance abuse treatment. Respondent left the teaching profession in 1998 and did not return to the profession until 2014, when she became employed by Petitioner. When Respondent returned to the profession in 2014, she still needed to complete the two years of probation imposed against her teaching certificate by DOE. As part of her probation, Respondent was required to submit to two years of random drug testing. For the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, Respondent passed each of her randomly imposed drug tests and has subsequently been released from probation by DOE. Respondent has suffered from migraine headaches for several years and would often miss work due to migraine-related symptoms. Although Respondent missed several days of work during the 2016-2017 school year as a result of migraine headaches, her absences did not rise to the level to where it became necessary for her school principal to speak with her regarding the issue. On the morning of January 3, 2017, which was a teacher planning day, Respondent awoke with a migraine headache. Teachers are expected to report to work by 6:35 a.m. on teacher planning days. Respondent and Lisa Pellegrino were colleagues and friends. On January 3, 2017, at 7:16 a.m., 7:20 a.m., and at 10:29 a.m., respectively, Respondent called Ms. Pellegrino, who was at work. Respondent’s calls were not answered by Ms. Pellegrino because at the time, Ms. Pellegrino did not have her phone in her possession. At 9:01 a.m., on January 3, 2017, Respondent sent a text message to Ms. Deb Capo, who is the school’s secretary. The text message states: “Woke up with a headache . . . will be in ASAP.” At 10:36 a.m., Ms. Capo responded to the text message asking: “Are you here yet. Lou needs to see you.” Respondent replied and stated, “Not yet . . . I’ll be there by noon. All ok?” Ms. Capo then replied, “Yes. See you then.” At approximately 10:50 a.m., Ms. Pellegrino retrieved her cellphone and noticed that she had missed three calls from Respondent. Fearing a possible emergency, Ms. Pellegrino immediately called Respondent. Ms. Pellegrino testified during the final hearing as follows: I just called her because I wanted to see what was going on. I figured I had three missed calls; maybe there was an emergency. And when I spoke with her, she informed me that she had a really bad migraine, she didn’t think she was going to be able to make it, or she was trying to get pain pills because she couldn’t get her Imitrex prescription for a couple of days, and she was having a hard time getting to work to get her grades completed by the end of the day. And she asked me for pain pills or if I had any, and I said no.[1/] Within an hour or so of speaking with Respondent, Ms. Pellegrino and a few of her colleagues were preparing to leave for lunch when the question was asked, “did Lori [Respondent] come in yet?” One of the teachers in the lunch group was Amy Haggarty, who is the chairperson of the school’s math department and was aware of Respondent’s history of addiction to pain medication. Ms. Pellegrino, in response to the question about Respondent’s whereabouts, mentioned to Ms. Haggarty that she had just gotten off the phone with Respondent and that it was a weird conversation because Respondent said, according to Ms. Pellegrino, “that she has a bad migraine headache and she can’t fill her pain medication,” and asked her [Ms. Pellegrino] “if she had any pain medication.” Ms. Haggarty, because she knew of Respondent’s history with addiction to pain medication, became alarmed by Ms. Pellegrino’s statement and she immediately arranged to meet with the school principal, Mr. Long, to discuss what she had been told about Respondent. During her meeting with Mr. Long, Ms. Haggarty informed him of what she had been told by Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Long, upon concluding his meeting with Ms. Haggarty, then met with Ms. Pellegrino. Upon questioning by Mr. Long, Ms. Pellegrino confirmed that she had spoken with Respondent that morning and that Respondent asked her for pain medication. Mr. Long then contacted the school board’s office of human resources to report what he had been told by Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Long was advised by a representative from the office of human resources that Dave Carter would report to the school on the morning of January 4, 2017, to “possibly place Ms. Lorenz on administrative leave.” Dave Carter is a “human resources investigator” for the Charlotte County School Board and he reports to, among others, Mr. Chuck Breiner, assistant superintendent for the school board. According to Mr. Carter, his job responsibilities include conducting “personnel investigations based on allegations of misconduct or violations of school district policies, rules, or the Department of Education code of ethics.” During his testimony, Mr. Carter explained that when Mr. Breiner, or others as appropriate, believes that reasonable suspicion exists to subject an employee to drug testing, he [Mr. Carter] will go to the employee’s worksite, perform “an on- scene concurrence evaluation” of the employee, and, if necessary, transport the employee to the drug testing facility. Mr. Carter testified that an on-scene concurrence evaluation consists of him “interview[ing] the principal, call[ing] the employee down, [and] mak[ing] a physical observation of [the employee].” Mr. Carter testified that upon completion of the concurrence evaluation, if he believes that reasonable suspicion does not exist for drug testing, he will contact Mr. Breiner who will then make the final determination of whether the employee should be subjected to drug testing. Respondent arrived at the school around 6:15 a.m. on the morning of January 4, 2017. Soon after arriving at the school, Respondent saw Mr. Long who informed Respondent that he needed to meet with her during the “second hour” of the day, which is her planning period. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Respondent taught her first-period class before meeting with Mr. Long and Mr. Carter at 8:10 a.m. There is no evidence indicating that Mr. Long took any steps to observe Respondent’s “performance, appearance, or behavior” in preparation for his January 4, 2017, meeting with Respondent and Mr. Carter, or that Mr. Long reasonably believed that Respondent was under the influence of drugs such that she should be prevented from teaching her class.2/ At about 8:00 a.m. on the morning of January 4, 2017, Mr. Carter reported to Port Charlotte High School for the purpose of interviewing Respondent as part of an investigation into an unrelated matter. When Mr. Carter checked in at the school, he met with Mr. Long who informed him of the allegations concerning Respondent’s solicitation of pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Carter immediately contacted Mr. Breiner and informed him of the allegations against Respondent. Mr. Breiner, when he spoke with Mr. Carter, was not aware of Respondent’s history of drug addiction and, consequently, this was not a factor that he considered when ordering that Respondent be drug-tested. Mr. Breiner, based on the information that Respondent allegedly solicited pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino, as reported by Mr. Long, and the fact that Respondent, like a number of other employees, had multiple absences from work, directed Mr. Carter to terminate the investigation into the unrelated matter and to proceed with taking Respondent to an authorized facility for reasonable suspicion drug testing. At no time prior to directing Mr. Carter to subject Respondent to drug testing did Mr. Breiner instruct Mr. Carter to personally interview Ms. Pellegrino regarding her conversation with Respondent. Additionally, at no time prior to Respondent’s drug test did Mr. Carter even attempt to question Ms. Pellegrino about her conversation with Respondent and the circumstances related thereto. It was only after Respondent had been drug tested that Mr. Carter interviewed Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Carter, after receiving direction from Mr. Breiner, and with the assistance of Debbie Anderson, who works as a personnel analyst in Respondent’s department of human resources, met with Respondent and explained that she was required to submit to drug testing pursuant to the school board’s drug-free workplace policy. Reasonable Suspicion Indicators Petitioner uses a form titled “Reasonable Suspicion Indicators Checklist” (checklist), when evaluating employees for suspicion of violating Petitioner’s Drug and Alcohol Free Work Environment Policy. The checklist provides as follows: Manager/Supervisor: This form is to be used to substantiate and document the objective facts and circumstances leading to a reasonable suspicion determination. After careful observations of the employee’s performance, appearance or behavior, please check all the observed indicators that raised the suspicion that the employee may have engaged in conduct which violates the Drug- and Alcohol-Free Work Environment Policy. Incident or reason for suspicion Apparent drug or alcohol intoxication Nausea or vomiting Abnormal or erratic behavior Evidence of possession, dispensation, or use of a prohibited substance Industrial accident requiring medical attention Physical altercation or assault Odors and/or Appearance Odor of alcohol (on breath or person) Distinctive, pungent aroma on clothing Excessive sweating or skin clamminess very flushed very pale Jerky eye movements Unfocused, blank stare Dilated or constricted pupils Dry mouth, frequent swallowing or wetting lips Bloodshot or watery eyes Behavior and Speech Slurred or incoherent speech Breathing difficulty or irregularity Loss of physical control, dizzy or fainting Unsteady walk, poor coordination Euphoric, fidgety, agitated or nervous affect Shaking hands/body, tremors, twitches Extreme fatigue or sleeping on the job Lackadaisical, apathetic attitude Irritable, moody, belligerent or aggressive demeanor Nausea or vomiting Suspicion of others; paranoia; accuses others Physical and/or verbal abusiveness Rambling, loud, fast, silly or repetitious speech Talkative, cursing, other inappropriate speech Diminished (or lack of) concentration Delayed or faulty decision making Impulsive, unsafe risk-taking Inappropriate response to instructions Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson each completed a checklist. None of the indicators listed above were checked by either Mr. Carter of Ms. Anderson as it pertains to their evaluation of Respondent. There is, however, an “indicator” appearing on the respective forms that is different in substance when comparing the form completed by Mr. Carter with the one completed by Ms. Anderson. On the form completed by Mr. Carter, there is a marked indicator that reads “Colleague disclosed that employee solicited ‘pain medication’ (controlled substance) during a teacher work day.” By comparison, the form completed by Ms. Anderson notes a different indicator which states “Employee discloses that he or she has consumed alcohol, used or ingested a controlled substance during or immediately prior to duty.” Neither party offered an explanation regarding the differences between the forms. Nevertheless, both Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson attached a narrative to the checklist regarding the circumstances surrounding Ms. Pellegrino’s statement about Respondent allegedly soliciting Ms. Pellegrino for pain medication. Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson each completed their respective checklist on January 11, 2017, which coincidentally, was the same date that Respondent’s lab results from her drug test were received by Petitioner.3/ The evidence does not explain why both Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson waited several days to complete their respective checklists. Mr. Carter testified that when he performed his concurrence evaluation of Respondent on January 4, 2017, the only indicator present for subjecting Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing was the statement of Ms. Pellegrino indicating that Respondent solicited pain medication from her on January 3, 2017. Ms. Anderson did not testify at the final hearing. Mr. Breiner, who made the ultimate decision to subject Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing on January 4, 2017, testified that two factors drove his determination: the first being Ms. Pellegrino’s statement, and the second being Respondent’s history of absenteeism from work during the 2016- 2017 school year.4/ On cross-examination, however, Mr. Breiner admitted that in Respondent’s notice of termination he made no reference to absenteeism being a factor in his decision to subject Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing. Morphine and Imitrex Respondent admits that on January 3, 2017, she took morphine in order to get relief from her migraine headache. Respondent testified that she typically takes Imitrex to treat her migraines, but when that drug is ineffective she takes morphine for relief of her symptoms. According to Petitioner, she has been taking Imitrex since about 2007 and she suffers no side effects from the medication. Respondent testified that she typically takes morphine about once or twice a year “when the Imitrex [is not] working” and that the effects of the morphine last “[a]nywhere from four to six hours, sometimes eight, but nothing after that.” Petitioner did not rebut Respondent’s statement and offered no evidence regarding the effects of morphine and the period of time after ingestion that a person is typically under the influence of the drug. According to medical records from Peace River Medical Center, Respondent was discharged from the hospital on August 23, 2007, following treatment for: 1. “[c]hest pain, myocardial infarction protocol; 2. [p]leuritic pneumonia; [and] [m]igraine.” At the time of release from the hospital, Respondent was “discharged home with Morphine 60 mg p.r.n.” According to Respondent’s unrefuted testimony, the morphine pill that she took on January 3, 2017, was part of the batch of pills that she received when discharged from the hospital in 2007. Petitioner, when first interviewed by Respondent on January 13, 2017, denied soliciting pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Charlotte County School Board enter a final order finding that there was no just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment during the term of her 2016-2017 annual contract with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 14th day of July, 2017.
The Issue Should Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Commission is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the certification and de- certification of law enforcement officers. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer having been certified by the Commission on January 24, 1992, and issued law enforcement certificate number 20445. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Cape Coral, Florida Police Department (CCPD). As a certified law enforcement officer, Respondent is sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Florida, in both an on-duty and off-duty capacity, and must follow a personal code of conduct which precludes the use of marijuana in an on-duty or off-duty capacity. Respondent was aware at the time he was hired by the CCPD that law enforcement officers had to abide by the Drug Free Workplace standards. As part of the biannual physical examination required by the CCPD, the Respondent, on June 4, 1999, presented to the Lee Memorial Health Systems, a/k/a Lee Convenient Care, a Collection Site as defined in Rule 59A-24.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of giving a urine specimen for drug testing. Strict procedures were followed in the collection of Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999, in order that the integrity and chain of custody of the specimen were maintained. Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999, was collected, identified, and forwarded to Diagnostic Services Inc., d/b/a DSI Laboratories (DSI) in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 112.0455(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-24.005, Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of testing for drugs. DSI is a Forensic Toxicology Laboratory as that term is defined in Rule 59A-24.003(8), Florida Administrative Code, and is a certified, state and federally-licensed forensic toxicology laboratory which conducted the tests of Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999. Respondent's urine specimen given on June 4, 1999, was given Specimen ID No. 11A, 292409 and Laboratory Accession No. 99- 157-0716. When urine is tested for the presence of marijuana, a positive result is indicated when the nanogram level of cannabinoids, or THC, reaches a level of 50 or higher on the initial screening, or immunoassay test. Rule 59A- 24.006(4)(e)1, Florida Administrative Code. If the immunoassay test is positive, the sample is subjected to a much more specific test, the Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) test. A result of a nanogram level of 15 or higher is a positive test result for the presence of cannabinoids or THC. Rule 59A-24.006(4)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code. The establishment of the cut-off levels on the immunoassay or GCMS tests eliminates any possibility of positive test results due to accidental ingestion. Respondent's urine specimen of June 4, 1999, was first subjected to the immunoassay test which reported a level of 169 nanograms of THC in Respondent's urine. Respondent's urine sample was then subjected to the GCMS test which reported a result of the presence of 37 nanograms of THC in Respondent's system. Elizabeth Burza, n/k/a Elizabeth Brunelli, the certifying scientist on the two tests conducted on Respondent's urine specimen of June 4, 1999, reviewed and approved the integrity of the chain of custody, that the machines used to test the specimen were operating correctly, and the accuracy of the positive result for cannabinoids in Respondent's system. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Brunelli certified that urine specimen number 11A-292409 tested positive for presence of cannabinoids. The urine specimen number and laboratory accession number were that of Respondent's urine specimen submitted on June 4, 1999. Abel Natali, M.D. was the Medical Review Officer of the tests conducted on the urine specimen number 11A-292409 submitted by Respondent on June 4, 1999. On June 9, 1999, Dr. Natali reviewed and approved the testing procedures and results thereof. Dr. Natali confirmed the conclusions of Ms. Brunelli that the test results as to specimen number 11A, 292409 did not reflect abnormality, and accurately reflected a positive reading of 37 nanograms of THC, cannabinoids, in Respondent's system. On June 10, 1999, Dr. Natali telephoned Respondent to confirm that Respondent had tested positive for cannabinoids. Dr. Natali inquired of Respondent as to any valid reason for the positive test for marijuana, such as: (1) was there a possibility that medical research had exposed Respondent to marijuana and; (2) had Respondent ingested any prescription or over-the-counter drugs which may have contained marijuana. The purpose of these questions was to allow the tested person to admit or deny use, and to allow the Medical Review Officer to follow up on valid explanations for exposure controlled substances. Respondent told Dr. Natali that he had been exposed to marijuana at a party where people were smoking marijuana and that he had smoked marijuana. However, during his testimony at the hearing, Respondent could not recall making that statement to Dr. Natali, and denied smoking marijuana at the party. Dr. Natali advised Respondent that he would be reporting the positive test results for marijuana to his supervisor, and that Respondent could request a retest. Respondent did not request a retest. On June 10, 1999, the positive test results for marijuana were reported to Lieutenant Everly, CCPD. Subsequently, on June 10, 1999, Lieutenant Everly and Lieutenant Furderer requested that Respondent submit another urine sample for testing. Although Respondent was not told that failure to submit another urine specimen would result in his termination from CCPD, he was advised that failure to submit another urine specimen could possibly result in his termination from the CCPD. Respondent agreed to the submission of a second urine specimen, and on June 10, 1999, Lieutenant Furderer transported Respondent to DSI Laboratories where Respondent submitted another urine specimen for testing. The collection and testing of the second urine specimen submitted by Respondent on June 10, 1999, and identified as 11A, 303243, was handled in accordance with the rules and statutes governing the collection and testing of urine specimens for the purpose of determining the presence of illegal drugs in the person's system. Ms. Brunelli, certifying scientist, certified the results of the two tests conducted on Respondent's second urine specimen identified as number 11A,303243. Ms. Brunelli certified specimen 11A, 303243 as being positive for the presence of cannabinoids on the immunoassay test at a level of 209 nanograms, and on the GCMS test at a level of 56 nanograms. Stephen I. Merlin, M.D., Medical Review Officer, reviewed and approved the collection and testing procedures used with Respondent's urine specimen submitted on June 10, 1999, and identified as 11A, 303243, and the positive results of the tests (a nanogram level of 209 for the immunoassay test and a nanogram level of 56 for the GCMS test) as reviewed and approved by Ms. Brunelli. Dr. Merlin informed Respondent that he had tested positive for cannabinoids, and inquired as to whether Respondent had taken any prescription drugs containing marinol, or if Respondent had been exposed to marijuana. Respondent replied in the negative. Respondent did not request a retest. Respondent's only explanation for the presence of cannabinoids in his system was the possible passive inhalation of marijuana smoke at a party in a motel room on the weekend prior to giving the first urine specimen on June 4, 1999. While passive inhalation of marijuana smoke under controlled conditions may possibly result in negigible amounts of cannabinoids being detected in a person's urine, Respondent failed to show that the conditions in that motel room were such that it would have resulted in passive inhalation of marijuana smoke by Respondent to the degree that his urine would have reflected, upon testing, even negigible amounts of cannabinoids, let alone the levels found in Respondent's urine. Respondent offered no evidence to demonstrate that he may have accidentally ingested marijuana during this period of time. Respondent's June 4, 1990, and June 10, 1999, urine specimens were disposed of on July 5, 2000. Prior to their disposal, Respondent did not contact anyone and request that the specimens be retain for retesting. Subsequent to being notified of the results of the second urine test, the CCPD terminated Respondent. However, after the CCPD held an informal hearing, CCPD reinstated Respondent. At the time of this hearing, Respondent was still working with the CCPD, apparently in an administrative capacity. Respondent presented no evidence of complete rehabilitation or substantial mitigating circumstances. The nanogram levels for cannabinoids reported for the initial and confirmation tests for the urine specimen given by Respondent on June 4, 1999, and the nanogram levels for cannabinoids reported for the initial and confirmation tests for the urine specimen given by Respondent on June 9, 1999, exceeded the nanogram levels for cannabinoids set out in Rule 59A-24.006(4)(e)1.(f)l., Florida Administrative Code, for positive testing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate number 20445. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Robert B. Burandt, Esquire 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent committed the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, involving possessing and introducing onto the grounds of a state correctional institution, certain controlled substances and, if so, what if any penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Erlene Stewart, has been employed as a correctional officer at Union Correctional Institution (UCI). She was so employed on February 1, 1999, and had been employed there for almost five years at that time. The Respondent was working on Saturday, January 30, 1999. On that day, officers at UCI examined employees coming to work by conducting an "Ion Scan" of employees to attempt to detect any drug or drug residues on or about their persons when they entered the institution to go on duty. The Respondent was subjected to such an Ion Scan and successfully passed it. Thus, she was aware that a drug detection effort was being conducted on Saturday, January 30, 1999, at UCI. February 1, 1999, was the Monday after that Saturday. The Respondent was working that day in tower number five of UCI. She had driven to work that day in the black Pontiac Grand Am in question, which is registered in her name. She was working on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., shift on that Monday. It was very unusual for a drug detection operation to be conducted on that Monday, immediately succeeding the Ion Scan drug detection operation which had been conducted on Saturday, two days before. Such a drug detection operation was conducted in the parking lot of UCI on Monday, February 1, 1999, however, using a drug detection dog. It was very unusual for a drug detection dog to be used so soon after an Ion Scan drug detection operation and also unusual for the dog to be used at 12:30 in the afternoon. The Respondent was surprised to find that a drug detection dog was being used in the parking lot of UCI on February 1, 1999. When the Respondent came to work on that day she locked her car leaving the windows slightly cracked and went inside to go on duty. Later that day, at approximately 12:30 p.m., a drug detection dog, handled by Sergeant Box of UCI, was examining vehicles in the parking lot and "alerted" to the presence or odor of narcotics inside or on the Respondent's vehicle. The dog had been trained and certified to be capable of passively alerting to the odors of four narcotics: marijuana, powdered cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. After the dog alerted to the presence of contraband drugs in or on the Respondent's vehicle, the Respondent, who was then working in tower number five, was relieved of duty and summoned to her vehicle in the parking lot on the grounds of UCI. When she arrived in the vicinity of her vehicle, she was informed that a drug detection dog had alerted to her vehicle. She provided a written consent, to the officers present, to a search of her vehicle. The Respondent had to unlock her vehicle in order for the drug detection officers to begin their search of its interior. Upon gaining access to the interior of the Respondent's vehicle, Sergeant Mobley of Hamilton Correctional Institution, discovered an aluminum foil package containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine, on the passenger's side of her vehicle. Sergeant Mobley turned that package over to the custody of Inspector Bailey. Sergeant Dugger found what appeared to be marijuana on the driver's side of the Respondent's vehicle. Prior to his entry into the vehicle, Sergeant Dugger and Inspector Bailey had observed through the window what appeared to be marijuana and marijuana seeds on and about the driver's seat. The Respondent is familiar with the appearance of marijuana and cocaine. Moreover, she is aware that cocaine is commonly wrapped in aluminum foil. Her former husband had been known to use cocaine according to the Respondent's testimony. Inspector Bailey took custody of the suspected cocaine and marijuana and conducted two tests on both substances. The results of his field test and Ion Scan test were positive for marijuana and cocaine. The evidence was then turned over to Inspector Yaw who conducted another Ion Scan test on the white powder confirming it as cocaine. Sergeant Dale Pfalzgraf of the Union County Sheriff's Office, was summoned to UCI on that day, after the suspected drugs were located in the Respondent's vehicle. Inspector Yaw turned over to him a sealed plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana and a tin-foil package of what appeared to be cocaine. Deputy Pfalzgraf placed the Respondent under arrest and transported her and the evidence to the Sheriff's office. He placed the evidence into a secure locker with the evidence custodian, pending its transportation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory. Deputy Tomlinson of the Union County Sheriff's Office was given the evidence that was seized from the Respondent's vehicle by the evidence custodian and transported it to the FDLE laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida, for testing. At the FDLE laboratory, Allison Harms received the evidence from Deputy Tomlinson. The evidence bag remained sealed until testing was performed by Ms. Somera, the FDLE chemistry analyst. Ms. Somera tested the substances contained within the bag and positively identified them as cannibis and cocaine. The Respondent maintains in her testimony that her former husband had access to her vehicle and had used it in the last several days with some of his friends. She contends that he is a known illicit drug user (cocaine). She also states that she left the windows to her car slightly cracked for ventilation when she parked it in the parking lot on the day in question to go to work. She states, in essence, that either the illicit drug materials found in her car were placed there without her knowledge by her former husband or his friends or, alternatively, that the correctional officers involved in the investigation planted the drug materials in her car in order to remove her from employment and/or licensure as retaliation for past employment-related friction she states she had with prison authorities. She also contends that another prison employee told her in private that she was being "framed" but that that person refused to testify on her behalf because of fear of potential loss of his job. In any event, her self-serving testimony is not corroborated by any other witness or exhibit and is not credited.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as defined by the above-cited legal authority and that her certification be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Erlene Stewart Route 1, Box 52 Sanderson, Florida 32087 A. Leon Lowry, II Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that (1) on several occasions, cocaine was possessed, sold, or delivered on the licensed premises by Respondent's employees in violation of state law, and (2) by virtue of such Possession, sale, or delivery of cocaine by its employees, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Provende, Inc., a general partner in a limited partnership known as Alexandre, Ltd., is responsible for and operates a nightclub under the name of Club Alexandre (the "Club") at 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In connection with its operation of Club Alexandre, Respondent holds beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, which permits the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages on the premises. (Stipulation of Parties, Testimony of Cachaldore.) Club Alexandre, located within the Omni International complex, is a large, multi-faceted club. Its premises consists of two levels totaling approximately 30,000 square feet. The first level includes a restaurant, bar area, three separate dance floors, bathroom facilities, and a stage for entertainment. Buffet lunches are served as early as 11:30 a.m., followed by a cocktail hour in late afternoon, dinner, and live entertainment which continues until 3:00 a.m. The second level is used primarily for private parties, weddings, and business meetings; it is enclosed in glass, and includes banquet rooms, bathroom facilities, storage rooms, and the Club's business offices. Ordinarily, the Club employs from 45 to 50 persons as busboys, bartenders, barmaids, waiters, maitre d's, cooks, dishwashers, office staff, promoters, and buyers. Most of the employees have been hired by Alex Cachaldora--general manager of the Club, stockholder, and president of Respondent. He either hires or approves the hiring of all Club employees and is the individual responsible for managing the Club on a daily basis. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Club Alexandre is a semi-private club. Upon application, acceptance, and payment of a fee, persons may become members; public customers may also use the Club after screening at the entrance and payment of a cover charge. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) I. As to Count I On November 23, 1980, at approximately 12:10 a.m., D.C. Diaz--an off- duty officer of the Miami Police Department--paid a cover charge and entered the Club Alexandre. He sat at the bar counter, ordered a drink from a young barmaid dressed in a black uniform, and asked her if she could give him some "white magic", a street term referring to cocaine. She asked how much he wanted, he said "one gram"; she then informed him that the price would be $65. (Testimony of Diaz.) Diaz then gave the barmaid a $100 bill; she went to the cash register and returned with $35 in change which he gave to Diaz. She told him, "It will take between five and ten minutes." (Tr. 22-I-22.) Five to ten minutes later, a waiter--dressed in a black tuxedo-type shirt--approached from the restaurant area and gave the barmaid a folded napkin which she, in turn, gave to Diaz. He opened the napkin and found a small tinfoil packet inside containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Diaz.) Subsequent laboratory tests by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department confirmed that the white powder obtained by Diaz from the barmaid on November 23, 1980, was cocaine. II. As to Count 2 On January 23, 1981, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Beverage Officers Carmen Gonzalez and Joe Mato, together with Art Serig of the Miami Police Department, entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. They proceeded to the second floor area, sat at a table, and ordered drinks. (Testimony of Mato.) At approximately 12:25 am. (January 24, 1981), Officer Mato proceeded to the downstairs bar where a barmaid identified as Enid Epstein was tending bar. After ordering a drink, he asked her if she knew where he could obtain some "white magic"; she answered, "Yes, if he is still here it would be $65."(Tr. 22-I-53.) He agreed to the price and handed her $70. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area located in the rear of the premises. A few minutes later, he observed her running across the upstairs lounge area to the bar. After a brief delay, she proceeded toward the downstairs bathroom area. She then returned to Officer Mate, handed him a $5 bill folded into a small package, and explained, "This is the change that I owed you." (Tr. 22-I- 54.) He opened the folded $5 bill and found a small tinfoil packet containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Mato.) Subsequent Dade Public Safety Department laboratory tests confirmed that the white powder obtained by Officer Mato from Enid Epstein was cocaine. (P-2.) III. As to Count 3 On January 24, 1981, at approximately 9:20 p.m., undercover Beverage Officers Lou Clark end Lou Terminello entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of continuing the Division's narcotic investigation. They seated themselves at the downstairs bar area end ordered drinks from a male bartender who introduced himself as "Bill", later identified as William Mendel. Officer Clark told "Bill" that they had picked up a couple of girls and asked if there was anything to help with the party. A conversation ensued about there being a lot of "snow" in Kansas--Clark using the term's ordinary meaning--and "Bill" answering, "That is not the kind of snow I was referring to." (Tr. 22-I-132.) In response to Clark's question about obtaining something that might help with their party, "Bill" indicated his contact wasn't there at that time, but that "they should be in later." (Tr. 22-I-133.) Officers Clark and Terminello then left the premises. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) About an hour later, the two beverage officers returned to the premises, and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered a drink from "Bill" and asked if his contact had arrived. He went over and talked to a young red-haired female barmaid--later identified as Enid Epstein-and returned to the officers; he then wrote "75" on a white bar napkin and placed it on the counter in front of them. Terminello said, "That is fine, we'll take two" (Tr. 22-I-136) and laid $80 on the table. Clark laid dawn a $100 bill. "Bill" took the $100, and $56 from Terminello's $80, leaving $24 in change. 4/ "Bill" then rang up a $6 sale an the register and placed the rest of the money in the right vest pocket of Enid Epstein. She then left the bar and proceeded into the kitchen area. A few minutes later she returned--via the staircase leading from the second floor--folded an unidentified object into a napkin, and handed it to Bill. He, in turn, handed the napkin to Terminello. After finding two small tinfoil packets in the napkin, the officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Clark.) The two small packets contained a white powder. Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified the white powder contained in one of the packets as cocaine. 5/ IV. As to Count 4 After his initial drug transaction with barmaid Enid Epstein during the early morning hours of January 24, 1981, (Paragraph 7 through 9, Count 2, above) Officer Mato returned to the Club Alexandre with Beverage Officer Emil Marrero. They arrived shortly before midnight on January 24, 1981, and seated themselves on opposite ends of the downstairs bar. After ordering drinks, Officer Mato called over barmaid Enid Epstein--who was tending bar--placed $70 on the bar and told her he would like to purchase some "white magic", another street name referring to cocaine. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area, then returned and handed Mato a folded $5 bill containing a small tinfoil packet. A few minutes later, the beverage officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Mato, Merrero.) The small tinfoil packet contained white powder which subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified as cocaine. (P-2.) V As to Count 5 At 11:00 p.m., on January 27, 1981, Beverage Officers Marrero and Delmonte entered the Club Alexandre and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered drinks from barmaid Enid Epstein. Shortly after midnight Merrero folded $70 in a small packet and placed it on the bar; he then asked Epstein if he could buy some "white magic", meaning cocaine. Taking the money, she went to the kitchen area and returned, placing a folded $5 bill in front of Marrero. Inside the folded bill was a small tinfoil packet. The officers then left the premises. (Testimony of Marrero, Delmonte.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of the tinfoil packet as cocaine. (P-3.) VI. As to Count 6 On January 28, 1981, at 12:45 a.m., Officers Clark and Terminello returned to the Club Alexandre in furtherance of their narcotics investigation. Seated at the lower level bar, they ordered drinks from Enid Epstein, the barmaid. Shortly thereafter, Terminello called her over end asked her if there was any chance of their getting some more "toot", another slang ward for cocaine. She replied that she would have to check to "see if any of my people are here." (Tr. 22-I-104.) She then left the bar, walked to the rear kitchen area and returned several minutes later saying, "Yeah, no problem. There is somebody here." Id. Each officer then placed $75 on the bar; she retrieved the money, left for the kitchen area and returned with a folded napkin which contained two small tinfoil packets. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of one of the packets as cocaine. 6/ (P-5.) VII. As to Count 7 On January 29, 1981, at approximately 11:40 p.m. beverage officers, assisted by officers of the Miami Police Department, executed a search warrant on the premises of the Club Alexandre. During the search, Beverage Officer Joseph Maggio found a brown leather purse on a shelf in a locked storage room on the second floor. The outside pocket of the purse contained ten small tinfoil packets containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine. A further search of the purse revealed small baggies and six additional tinfoil packets--all containing suspected cocaine. (Testimony of Maggio, McEwan.) The purse also contained a checkbook and a Florida driver's license issued in the name of Luis A. Vargas. Vargas, the head chef for Club Alexandre, was subsequently located downstairs. After being advised of his rights, Vargas identified the purse as his own. Of the numerous packets of white powder found within the purse, only one was subjected to Public Safety Department laboratory analysis; the contents of that packet were identified as cocaine. (P-7.) VIII. Licensee's Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care end Diligence Before a beverage license can be suspended or revoked for a violation of law on the licensee's premises, the licensee must be found culpably responsible for the violation through his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence. 7/ In the instant case, no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent has been alleged or proved. Rather, the Division contends that the violations of state narcotics laws described above resulted from Respondent's failure to exercise reasonable skill and diligence in managing and supervising its operations. Respondent does not dispute that on seven occasions, as alleged, violations of state narcotics laws occurred on the premises; however, it denys negligence or lack of diligence. It affirmatively contends that it took every reasonable precaution to guard against the illegal sale or use of narcotics on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Cachaldora, Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent's Suggested Findings of Fact.) Respondent's contention is unavailing; the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to take reasonable precautions to guard against violations of narcotics laws on its premises--that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care end diligence in managing its operations and supervising its employees. The following facts justify this conclusion: The alleged violations of narcotics laws occurred on the premises in a recurring, persistent, and practiced manner. They occurred at least seven times--over a 2 1/2- month period--and involved at least three separate employees of the Respondent. Despite the licensee's knowledge or suspicion, through its operators and managers, that violations of state narcotics laws occasionally occurred on it premises, the licensee never expressly enunciated--either to its employees or patrons--a policy forbidding the possession, sale, or use of narcotics. Employees were not admonished against involving themselves in such violations; neither were penalties for such violations announced in advance. Neither was information concerning possible narcotics law violations or convictions elicited from prospective employees. Given the nature and size of the Club, the number of its employees end patrons, and management's knowledge, or suspicion, that narcotics violations had occurred on the premises--the licensee took inadequate steps to (1) monitor activities on the premises, and (2) detect narcotics violations and prevent their occurrence. It employed off-duty Omni security guards only during times when business activity was greatest. At all other times, it relied on its employees for surveillance and security. The place where narcotics violations were most likely to occur--the bathroom facilities on two floors--were monitored by a single valet with minimal security training and who could neither speak nor understand English. The security efforts by the licensee were directed more to controlling disturbing or offensive behavior by patrons than pretending violations of law from occurring on the premises, or taking forceful action when such violations were detected. The quality of the licensee's surveillance program is illustrated by an experiment conducted by Beverage Officer Delmonte. On January 14, 1981--while at the Club with Beverage Officer Marrero--he observed several persons in the men's bathroom with running eyes and noses. During that same visit, Officer Marrero observed several waiters and a patron in the bathroom "sniffing something through their nostrils." (Tr. 22-I-78.) The Respondent's valet was also present in the bathroom at the time. On Officer Delmonte's next visit to the Club--January 27, 1981--he decided to conduct an experiment because of the suspicious activities observed on January 14, 1981. He went to the bathroom with a dollar bill rolled into a small tube; he placed it to his nostril and pretended to inhale something. The valet came in, observed this behavior, and acted surprised. Delmonte then acted embarrassed, smiled, and placed the dollar back in his pocket. After the valet handed him a kleenex, Delmonte exited the bathroom with the valet following him. At the foyer, the valet spoke with an older lady wearing a dark dress; the lady then engaged in a casual conversation with Delmonte and Enid Epstein--who was tending bar. Nothing further occurred in response to Officer Delmonte's experiment. (Testimony of Delmonte, Mendel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clerk, Terminello, Marrero, Guerre, Robertson, Cachaldora, Puig; R-3, R-7.) Respondent's suggested findings of fact are adopted to the extent they establish: (1) Between November 23, 1980, and January 28, 1981, law enforcement officers made numerous undercover visits to the Club when they did not, or were unable to purchase illicit narcotics on the premises; (2) During undercover visits during the period in question--except for the January 14, 1881, incident in the men's bathroom end the incidents alleged in Counts 1 through 7--the officers did not observe anyone using or selling illicit narcotics or marijuana. Moreover, two off-duty police officers who sometimes socially visited the Club-- and were encouraged to do so by Respondent--did not observe any narcotics violations taking place; (3) Each sale of cocaine, as alleged, was preceded by a law enforcement officer's solicitation to purchase; and (4) Unless observed in the act, it is difficult to ascertain--with certainty--whether a person uses, sells, or is inclined to use or sell narcotics. (Testimony of Stillman, Diaz, Sokolowski, Delmonte, Mandel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clark, Terminello, Marrero, Guerra, Robertson.) IX. Appropriate Disciplinary Penalty No aggravating evidence was offered by the Division to justify permanent license revocation; no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent, or its manager, has been shown. Respondent has no record of prior infractions of the Beverage Law. There is no evidence which indicates that Respondent's operator, Alex Cachaldora, was aware that several of his employees were involved with illicit narcotics. In light of the facts of this case, permanent revocation of Respondent's beverage license is unwarranted; rather, a 90-day suspension is appropriate, less any days during which Respondent's beverage license has been effectively suspended by emergency order of the Division. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Both parties have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration in this proceeding. To the extent such findings have not been adopted or incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, It is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order suspending Respondent's beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, for 90 days; provided, however, to the extent Respondent's license may have been effectively suspended by prior emergency order of the Division, the period of such emergency suspension should be subtracted from the 90-day period. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or the School Board), has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renya Jones (Respondent or Ms. Jones).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Renya Jones, is employed by the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida. She has been employed by the School Board since the 2004-2005 school year, most recently as a music teacher at Village Green Environmental Studies School. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. As a classroom teacher, she is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers Association. When Respondent was hired by the School Board, she participated in an orientation process whereby she received training on a variety of School Board policies, including the Code of Ethics/Professional Competency and the Drug-Free Workplace Policy. On July 28, 2004, she signed a New Employee Orientation Verification of Training form indicating that she had received training in the areas listed (including those named above), and that she had received a copy of the St. Lucie County School Board New Employee Handbook. Respondent also submitted to pre-employment drug screening on July 30, 2004. On May 8, 2017, Respondent was a music teacher at Village Green Environmental Studies School, also referred to as Village Green Elementary (Village Green). The contractual hours for teachers at Village Green during the 2016-2017 school year were from 7:45 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. There were clubs that met in the morning before classes began at approximately 8:30 a.m., and those teachers working with clubs were required to report earlier so that they were present when the clubs were to start. Respondent was the teacher working with the chorus club, which would require her to be present early. When teachers arrive at school, they normally sign in at the front desk. Cynthia Garcia is the executive secretary to the principal at Village Green. During the 2016-2017 school year, the principal was Ucola Barrett-Baxter. Ms. Garcia typically arrives at school before anyone else and sits at the front desk as teachers sign in, as opposed to sitting in her office, adjacent to Ms. Barrett-Baxter’s. On May 8, 2017, Ms. Garcia was present when Respondent signed in at sometime between 7:30 and 7:50 a.m. Ms. Garcia asked Respondent if she was alright, because her appearance was different than normal. While Respondent was usually dressed professionally and wore make-up, that morning she was wearing no make-up and her wig was not on straight. Respondent replied that she was running a little behind and was a little messed up, and still needed to put on her make-up. Ms. Garcia testified that Respondent was different than when she usually signed in, and described her as a bit “giddy,” flailing her arms and laughing. Actavis McQueen is a fourth-grade teacher at Village Green. As she approached her classroom on May 8, 2017, Respondent called to her in the hallway a little after 8:00 a.m. Ms. McQueen described Respondent as giggly and loud, and when Ms. McQueen approached Respondent, she noticed that Respondent was not properly dressed for work. For example, her wig was twisted, she was not wearing make-up as she usually does, her stomach was showing under the tank top she was wearing, and she was wearing flip flops or slides instead of shoes. Most importantly, Ms. McQueen could smell the strong odor of alcohol. Respondent was loud and laughing, saying that the children would not recognize her without her make-up. Students were starting to come in for practice on the school play, and Ms. McQueen did not want the students to see Respondent in her current condition, so Ms. McQueen told students that there would not be a rehearsal that day. She told Respondent to go to her office in the back of her classroom and fix herself up. Ms. McQueen was shocked by Respondent’s appearance, and after telling Respondent to go to her office, Ms. McQueen headed toward the school office. On her way, she ran into Verna Brown at the cafeteria. The chorus room that served as Respondent’s classroom is adjacent to or behind the cafeteria, and can be entered from the cafeteria area by way of the stage. Verna Brown2/ is a health paraprofessional employed at Village Green. On this particular morning, she was on duty in the cafeteria for those students eating breakfast. Ms. McQueen approached her and told Verna Brown that she had spoken to Respondent, and it appeared that Respondent had been drinking. Ms. McQueen reported that Respondent smelled of alcohol and asked Verna Brown to go check on Respondent, because Ms. McQueen was uncertain what to do. Verna Brown went to Respondent’s class, and when she arrived, two other staff members were in Respondent’s room, so she closed the door and said she would come back, which she did once the others left the room. Like Ms. McQueen, Verna Brown could smell alcohol and observed that Respondent’s eyes were swollen and red, her hair was “wild,” and her stomach was showing. Respondent indicated that she had been to a party. Verna Brown was concerned for Respondent’s well-being and told Respondent she needed to get herself together. While she was talking to Respondent, students were trying to come into the room through the stage, and were asking Respondent questions about rehearsal. Respondent told them there would be no rehearsal that morning and to come back at 3:00 p.m. Verna Brown was trying to keep the students from seeing Respondent because she did not want them to see her in that condition. Verna Brown asked Respondent if Respondent needed her to call someone to come get her, but Respondent indicated that she had a rental car, and left out the back door.3/ Despite having signed in upon her arrival at Village Green, Respondent did not sign out when she left. Verna Brown was not authorized to arrange for a substitute for Respondent, but told her she would speak with Ms. Garcia about one. No substitute was ever procured. Verna Brown returned to the cafeteria and confirmed to Ms. McQueen that she also smelled alcohol on Respondent. Ms. McQueen went to the office accompanied by Sherri Brown, the media specialist, in search of the principal, Ucola Barrett- Baxter. Ms. Garcia advised Ms. McQueen that Ms. Barrett-Baxter was at student drop-off duty, and Ms. McQueen told Ms. Garcia that she needed to speak to her about a staff member. Ms. Garcia asked if it was Respondent, and went to the drop-off area to advise Ms. Barrett-Baxter of Ms. McQueen’s need to see her. Ms. Garcia believed that Ms. McQueen was very upset about Respondent and took over Ms. Baxter-Barrett’s duties at the student drop-off area so that Ms. Barrett-Baxter could speak with Ms. McQueen. Ms. Barrett-Baxter found Ms. McQueen at the media center, where Ms. McQueen advised her that she had seen Respondent and that Respondent appeared to be drunk and smelled like alcohol. Ms. Barrett-Baxter asked where Respondent could be located, and was told that she had already left the campus. Ms. Barrett-Baxter immediately called Aaron Clements, the director of Employee Relations, and explained the situation. Upon learning that Ms. Barrett-Baxter had not seen Respondent personally and that Respondent was no longer at the school, Mr. Clements advised Ms. Barrett-Baxter that at that point, there was nothing that could be done. As noted above, Sherri Brown is a media specialist at Village Green. At Ms. McQueen’s request, she accompanied Ms. McQueen to the office to find Ms. Barrett-Baxter. She and Verna Brown were both concerned about whether Respondent made it home safely, and she tried to call Respondent. Respondent did not answer her phone when Sherri Brown called, and she and Verna Brown received permission from Ms. Barrett-Baxter to leave campus and drive by Respondent’s home to make sure she had arrived. Once they saw the rental car Respondent had been driving parked at her home, they returned to campus. Respondent returned Sherri Brown’s call at about 10:17 a.m., and stated that she had left early due to an unidentified emergency. Sherri Brown told Respondent to contact Ms. Barrett-Baxter before she came back to work, and not to come back to the school. Sherri Brown relayed the telephone conversation with Respondent to her media assistant, Mary Bergerman, and told Ms. Bergerman that she needed to go to the office and report the contact with Respondent. Ms. Bergerman had heard Sherri Brown’s side of the telephone conversation and confirmed that Sherri Brown had told Respondent not to return to the school, as opposed to advising her that she needed to come back. When Sherri Brown arrived at the office, Ms. Barrett- Baxter was in a meeting with a parent. She stepped into Ms. Garcia’s office to relay the message that Respondent was going to contact the principal, and while she was there, Respondent entered the office behind her. Sherri Brown said hello to Respondent and returned to the library. She covered Respondent’s classes for the day, and she and a co-worker covered the rehearsal that afternoon. While Ms. Barrett-Baxter was in the parent conference, at approximately 10:24 a.m., she received a text from a number she did not recognize. She responded, “I’m in a meeting. Who’s calling,” to which Respondent responded, “Jones I’m there in 5 minutes.” Respondent arrived in the office while Ms. Barrett- Baxter was still in the parent conference, so she went in Ms. Garcia’s office to wait. After somewhere between ten and 30 minutes, the parent conference concluded, and Respondent went in Ms. Barrett-Baxter’s office. Ms. Barrett-Baxter testified that Respondent is normally well put together in terms of make-up and hair, but when she came in the office she looked disheveled, and noticeably different from her normal appearance. She could detect the smell of alcohol and her eyes were puffy and red. Respondent told her she had gone home to clean up a little bit, and Ms. Barrett-Baxter replied that it did not work, because she could smell the alcohol from across the desk. She told Respondent that she would have to contact the district office, and left Respondent in her office while she went to Ms. Garcia’s office to call Mr. Clements. Sometime that day, she also completed a Human Resources Reporting Form and emailed it to Mr. Clements. The Reporting Form summarized the reports she had received regarding Respondent’s apparent intoxication and what she had observed when meeting with Respondent before calling Mr. Clements. Reasonable suspicion existed to warrant testing for drugs and alcohol based upon Respondent’s appearance, behavior, and the smell of alcohol emanating from her person and noted by nearly every person with whom she came in contact. Mr. Clements advised that he would send someone from security to transport Respondent for testing. Ms. Barrett-Baxter had Respondent go sit in the conference room in the office area to wait for transport, and resumed her other duties. Ken Rodriguez is a security officer for the St. Lucie County School District (School District) and a retired police officer from New York City, and he has worked at the School District for the last nine years. He arrived at Village Green between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. Once he arrived, he went to the conference room where Respondent was waiting. He identified himself to Respondent and explained that he would be transporting her to the district office where she would meet with Aaron Clements, who would explain to her the procedures that were going to take place. Mr. Rodriguez asked Respondent about any personal affects she might have, and then asked someone in the office to retrieve her purse for her. Upon receiving the purse, Respondent placed it on the table and started looking for something. From his vantage point standing by the table, he could see a large ziplock bag of capsules in her purse, as well as a box of box cutters. He did not search her purse, but asked her about the bag of capsules, and Respondent told Mr. Rodriguez that they were vitamins. Mr. Rodriguez took her explanation at face value, but advised her that he was going to hold onto both the bag of capsules and the box cutters as a safety measure while she was transported, and return them to her when they were finished. Mr. Rodriguez and Respondent arrived at the School District offices sometime after noon. Mr. Rodriguez directed Respondent to sit in the reception area while he went in to see Mr. Clements. Mr. Rodriguez reported to Mr. Clements that he had taken possession of the capsules and the box cutter as a safety measure and gave them to Mr. Clements, and then brought Respondent in to meet with him. Mr. Rodriguez did not sit in on the meeting between Mr. Clements and Respondent. Mr. Clements advised Respondent that she was going to be taken to the lab for drug/alcohol testing, and now would be the time for her to tell him if the pills were something illegal or would cause her to have a negative result from the test, and she again stated that they were vitamins. Mr. Clements reiterated that they were sending her for drug and alcohol testing, and she indicated that she understood. She was provided with the standard forms related to testing that are used for all employees being tested, and she signed them. Respondent did not ask Mr. Clements any questions, and appeared to understand what she was told. Mr. Clements is not the medical resource officer for St. Lucie County Schools. The medical resource officer is identified on the form for drug testing, along with his telephone number. No evidence was presented to indicate that Respondent asked to speak to the medical resource officer or was prohibited from doing so. The School District typically tests for both drugs and alcohol on a reasonable suspicion test. While there may be reasonable suspicion that someone is under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, without the testing, it is difficult to know for sure the source of the influence. After meeting with Mr. Clements, Respondent was provided with a St. Lucie Public Schools Drug & Alcohol Testing notification form that identifies the time Respondent left the School District and instructs her to report to the identified testing location no later than 30 minutes from receiving the form. Respondent and Mr. Clements both signed this form at 1:10 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez drove Respondent to Absolute Testing/Consulting (Absolute Testing), where he provided the paperwork to a technician, Gina Dinello, who took her back for testing while he waited in the reception area. Absolute Testing provides alcohol testing to St. Lucie County using a breathalyzer, and provides drug testing using a urine sample. Ms. Dinello holds the appropriate certifications to conduct the breathalyzer test and to collect the urine sample for the drug test. The sample for the urine test is obtained on premises and then transported to a laboratory for processing. The breathalyzer that Absolute Testing uses is DOT- certified, and is calibrated in accordance with DOT standards. Ms. Dinello took Respondent into the back room at Absolute Testing, and explained how the procedure for the breathalyzer works. She showed Respondent the documents related to the test, and Respondent signed them. With breathalyzer tests, where there is a positive test result, it is standard procedure to wait 15 minutes and then have the person being tested blow into the breathalyzer a second time. The theory is that, by waiting the 15 minutes, any extraneous influence, such as mouthwash, that might have affected the first test would have dissipated by the second test. Respondent cooperated with the first administration of the breathalyzer test, which resulted in a reading of .186 at 1:40 p.m. Once she learned the results of the first test, however, she did not want to wait for the second administration. Ms. Dinello asked Mr. Rodriguez to help explain the process to her, and he did so, telling her that a second test was a standard part of the process. Both Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Dinello explained to Respondent that she had a right to refuse the test, but her refusal would be documented. Respondent then consented to the second administration, which resulted in a reading of .191 at 1:56 p.m. After the breathalyzer test was complete, Ms. Dinello explained that Respondent needed to provide a urine sample for the drug test. Respondent declined to do so, saying she had already blown the breathalyzer test, so there was no point to proceed with the urine test. Both Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Dinello explained again that if she chose to refuse the test, the refusal would be documented and reported to the School District. Respondent refused to submit, and Ms. Dinello submitted paperwork to that effect. Mr. Rodriguez was not informed of the results of the breathalyzer test. When the testing was finished, he took Respondent to her home, returned her belongings to her, and she walked into her home. He did not allow her to drive her car home, which remained at Village Green, because he believed that she could still be under the influence of alcohol. He testified that when he transported her to the testing facility, he could smell the heavy odor of alcohol on her, and he did not believe she was physically capable of driving home. Respondent was paid a salary for May 8, 2017, and had not requested annual or sick leave. She was on duty when she arrived at the school that morning, and she remained on duty, despite the fact that she chose to go home without signing out for the day. On May 9, 2017, Respondent received a letter by hand- delivery notifying her that she was under investigation for having a breath alcohol level of .186 and .191 while at her work location, and for refusing the drug test. She was placed on temporary duty assignment. While on temporary duty, Respondent received all of her pay and benefits. Moreover, Respondent was paid for the entire term of her contract for the 2016-2017 school year, from August 12, 2016, through June 30, 2017. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Clements provided to Respondent a Meeting Notice, scheduling a meeting regarding the charges that she refused the drug test and had unacceptable breath alcohol test results. Respondent acknowledged receiving the notice in writing and attended the meeting with her union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to provide Respondent with “due process” and give her the opportunity to provide any information she might choose regarding the allegations against her. On May 15, 2017, Respondent received written notice of a second meeting, to be held on May 22, 2017. The purpose of this meeting was to provide Respondent the results of the School District’s investigation. Respondent and her representative attended this meeting as well. On May 22, 2017, Rafaal Sanchez, Jr., Mr. Clements’ supervisor and executive director of Human Resources for the School District, recommended to Superintendent Gent that Respondent’s employment be terminated. Superintendent Gent accepted Mr. Sanchez’s recommendation and by letter dated May 22, 2017, notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that her employment be terminated, as well as the procedure available to her to contest that recommendation. The letter also advised Respondent that if she chose to request a hearing, the superintendent would recommend that she be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing. That same day, counsel for Respondent wrote to Superintendent Gent regarding the allegations against Respondent. He advised the superintendent that Respondent was relieved of duty on May 8, 2017, and was later called and told to return to Village Green, and that she voluntarily complied with this directive. He also contended that she was not presented with any drug testing policies and she had no knowledge of the consequences of failing to submit to the drug test at that time. As a result of this letter, Mr. Clements opened a second investigation to see whether anyone had told Respondent to return to school. At that time, he gathered statements from staff members, who had seen Respondent at school on the morning of May 8, 2017, and ultimately closed the investigation as unsubstantiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board finding that Respondent’s conduct as identified in the Findings of Fact constitute just cause for terminating her position as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2018, 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 22nd day of February, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, should be disciplined based on the alleged violations of the alcoholic beverage laws set forth in the Notice to Show Cause dated August 14, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jimmy Karl Boyd is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, for a licensed premises known as Get A Way Bar & Lounge, located at 2517 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ellie Reardon was the girlfriend of the Respondent and the manager of the premises. Shannon Dowding, who is Ms. Reardon's daughter, and Kathy Harris were also bartenders at the establishment. Petitioner initiated an investigation of the licensed premises based on a complaint from Jim Falsia, a deputy with the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, that persons were dealing in stolen property and drugs on the premises.2 Kent Stanton and Jennifer DeGidio, special agents employed by Petitioner, conducted the undercover investigation of Respondent's business in cooperation with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Before they entered the subject premises for the first time, Agents Stanton and DeGidio were given certain information, including identifying information pertaining to two suspected drug dealers named William Howell and Scott Lyons. As part of their investigation, Agents Stanton and DeGidio entered the subject premises during late afternoon or early evening on the following dates: June 18, 19, 23, and 26; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 4, 6, and 12, 1998. After each of these visits, the undercover agents returned to their office where they recorded their recollection of what had transpired. At all times, the two agents entered the premises together. One or the other agent always wore a listening device that was monitored by backup law enforcement officers. Agents Stanton and DeGidio purchased quantities of cocaine inside the subject premises on the following dates: June 19; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 6 and 12, 1998. THE PREMISES The premises are located in a commercial area that backs up to an area of low income housing. The premises consist of a parking area and a rectangular shaped building with approximately 2,000 square feet. The building has three doors. There is no lighting other than that provided by the open doors. The evidence established that there was adequate light in the premises to observe the events pertinent to this proceeding. There is a long bar with a mirror on the wall that the patrons face. The bartender on duty is usually stationed behind the bar in the vicinity of the cash register, which is behind the bar toward the eastern end of the bar. There is a telephone at the eastern end of the bar that patrons are free to use. The door at the westerly end of the premises is off a hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This hallway is not visible from where the bartender is usually stationed and is not otherwise monitored. There are four televisions that could be set on different stations. One or more television was usually on. There is a juke box. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the bar was cooled by two four-foot fans and an 18-inch fan because the central air conditioning system was broken. There were coolers behind the bar. Although the premises was noisy, the evidence established that the noise did not prevent ordinary conversation. JUNE 18, 1998 The first time the undercover agents entered the subject premises was Thursday, June 18, 1998. They observed Respondent, Ellie Reardon, and two patrons drinking beer and engaging in conversation. The agents only engaged in small talk on that occasion. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 19, 1998 On Friday, June 19, 1998, the two undercover agents entered the premises and made contact with Respondent, Ms. Reardon, and two patrons known to the agents only as "Rick" and "Gabe." Agent DeGidio asked Rick if he knew where she could "get something to party with." Rick replied, grass (slang for marijuana) or powder (slang for cocaine). When Agent DeGidio responded powder, Rick introduced her to another patron, William Howell, and requested Howell to provide cocaine to Agent DeGidio. Howell asked Agent DeGidio what she wanted, and Agent DeGidio replied an "eight bail," which is slang for 3.5 grams of cocaine. No employee of the Respondent was in a position to hear those conversations. After Howell related the price, Agent DeGidio returned to the bar area to Agent Stanton and asked him for money. Agent Stanton openly handed Agent DeGidio approximately $160.00. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe this transfer of money. Agent DeGidio returned to Howell and gave him $150.00. Agent DeGidio and Howell returned to the bar area and Howell picked up the phone from Ms. Reardon. Howell placed a brief telephone call, and within a short time, Ms. Reardon picked up the ringing telephone, and gave it to Howell. Howell then departed the premises and returned shortly thereafter, whereupon he handed Agent DeGidio a small plastic bag containing suspected cocaine. Howell did not attempt to conceal the nature of the transaction from Ms. Reardon, who was in position to observe the transfer. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JUNE 23, 1998 On June 23, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio approached employee Ms. Reardon and openly asked her if Howell was around and whether he could "get us some stuff." Ms. Reardon began looking for Howell, but did not take any other action regarding Agent DeGidio's obvious drug request. When Howell arrived at the premises shortly thereafter, he approached Agents DeGidio and Stanton. Howell told Agent DeGidio that Ellie (Ms. Reardon) had told him that she (DeGidio) wanted some, meaning drugs. When Agent DeGidio told Howell that she was looking for a gram of cocaine, Howell said he would try, made a phone call, and thereafter departed the premises. When Howell returned, he told the agents that his cocaine supplier had not come yet. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 26, 1998 On June 26, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell placed a phone call at the bar phone, and received a return call a few minutes later. Howell informed Agent DeGidio that he could sell her cocaine as soon as his supplier arrived. When Howell returned and advised that his cocaine supplier had not arrived, the agents departed. The evidence failed to establish that anyone employed by Respondent heard this conversation. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JULY 1, 1998 On July 1, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Their conversation occurred at the bar less than two feet from Shannon Dowding, who was tending the bar and in a position to hear the conversation. Ms. Dowding took no action in response to this conversation. Howell placed a call using the telephone at the bar and received a return call seconds later. Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton, who openly handed her $60.00. Agent DeGidio then handed the money to Howell. This exchange occurred in the middle of the bar in plain view of Ms. Dowding, but no reasonable inquiry or action was taken. Howell later approached an unidentified patron and called Agent DeGidio to where he was standing in the hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This area was not monitored or supervised by the Respondent or his employees and was not visible from the bar counter where the Respondent's bartender was stationed. When Agent DeGidio arrived, Howell handed her a small plastic bag containing cocaine. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 15, 1998 On July 15, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents met with Kathy Harris, who was working as the bartender at the premises. Ms. Harris answered the telephone at the bar and the caller asked for Howell, but Howell was not on the premises. Agent Stanton asked Ms. Harris if she knew whether Howell was coming to the premises that day. When Ms. Harris replied that she did not know, Agent DeGidio asked Ms. Harris if she knew someone who could get the agents "something to party with." Ms. Harris told the agents that Howell's "partner" was present. Ms. Harris then brought the partner into the premises and introduced him to the agents as "Scott," later identified as Scott Lyons. Agent DeGidio then loudly asked Lyons, in the presence of Ms. Harris, whether he could provide the agents "something to party with." Agent DeGidio and Lyons then discussed availability and price of the cocaine in the presence of Ms. Harris. When Agent Stanton expressed concern over giving Lyons money before receiving cocaine, Ms. Harris stated that Lyons could be trusted. Agent Stanton then handed Lyons $60.00 and Lyons departed the premises. Soon thereafter, Lyons returned to the premises and approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar two feet from Ms. Harris. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, a small plastic bag with a white powdery substance. At no time during this transaction did Ms. Harris, or any other employee, take any action to stop the drug transaction or even inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 21, 1998 On July 21, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents sat at the bar, which was tended by Ms. Dowding. Agent DeGidio made contact with Lyons, who was standing at the bar in front of Ms. Dowding, and asked if he could "get some stuff." Lyons said that he could, made another call using the bar phone, and departed the premises. Lyons and Howell later entered the premises together. Lyons approached Agent Stanton, and they discussed a cocaine transaction. Agent Stanton openly handed Lyons $60.00. These conversations were at normal speaking volumes and could have been heard by anybody at the bar including Ms. Dowding. After departing and then returning to the premises, Lyons approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar three feet from Ms. Dowding and four feet from Ms. Reardon, who had entered the premises. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton placed the small clear bags in the palm of his hand, and then placed his hand at chest level and looked at the bags of cocaine for a few seconds. Anybody at the bar was in a position to see the bags in Agent Stanton's hand including Ms. Dowding and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 23, 1998 On July 23, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. Agent Stanton went to the hallway by the men's room and met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent Stanton handed Lyons $60.00. Approximately five minutes later, Lyons approached Agent Stanton at the bar and handed him at bar level two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton held the cocaine in his palm and looked at it before placing it into his pocket. The cocaine transfer could have been viewed by anyone sitting at the bar, including a ten-year old boy, who was sitting next to Agent Stanton, and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Reardon or any other employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 29, 1998 On July 29, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine and asked him, in the presence of Ms.Dowding, for a gram. Howell walked to the end of the bar where Ms. Dowding handed him the telephone. Howell placed a call. When the phone rang moments later, Ms. Dowding answered and handed the telephone to Howell. After a short conversation, Howell told Agent DeGidio that she would have to wait. Ms. Dowding was sitting right next to Howell during this exchange. Shortly thereafter Ms. Dowding departed the premises and was replaced by Ms. Reardon, who had arrived with a child approximately ten years old. Agent DeGidio looked out the back door and saw Howell and an unidentified male in an automobile engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Howell then reentered the bar and approached Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio told Agent Stanton that Howell needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Howell $60.00 in the presence of Ms. Reardon. Howell briefly walked out the back door, reentered and handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The transfer occurred at the back of the bar. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 31, 1998 On July 31, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent Stanton met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Later, Lyons signaled Agent Stanton to walk to the hall by the men's room. Lyons stated that he needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Lyons $60.00. Approximately ten minutes later, Lyons again signaled Agent Stanton to go to the back of the bar. There Lyons handed Agent Stanton two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The evidence failed to establish that any employee of the Respondent was in a position to see these events or hear these conversations. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. AUGUST 4, 1998 On August 4, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the premises, but they did not purchase any drugs. AUGUST 6, 1998 On August 6, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent DeGidio obtained $60.00 from Agent Stanton and handed it to Howell. Approximately ten minutes later, Howell signaled Agent DeGidio to go to the back of the bar in front of the men's restroom. Once there Howell handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe Agent Stanton give Agent DeGidio the money that she subsequently gave to Howell. Ms. Reardon was not in a position to see or hear the remaining events. At no time did any employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. AUGUST 12, 1998 On August 12, 1998, Agents Stanton and Agent DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio again met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell was standing in the back of the bar with employee Ms. Reardon, Respondent, and an unknown patron. In the presence of these people, Agent DeGidio asked Howell if he could "hook her up." This question should have been construed by all who heard it as an inquiry pertaining to drugs. Howell replied that he would attempt to locate some cocaine for Agent DeGidio. Shortly thereafter, Howell met with Agent DeGidio and told Agent DeGidio that his usual source wasn't home, but he would see if he could get it from someone else. After discussing price with Howell, Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton and obtained $60.00 from him. Agent Stanton counted out the money in front of Ms. Reardon and Ms. Dowding and handed the money to Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio then gave the $60.00 to Howell. Shortly thereafter, Howell motioned for Agent DeGidio to come to the area of the men's room, where he handed Agent DeGidio $10.003 and two paper packets containing a white powdery substance. At no time did any of the employees attempt to stop the transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. Although the consummation of the foregoing transactions was frequently in the area of the men's room, any reasonable employee knew or should have known that the undercover agents were purchasing drugs from Howell and Lyons. With the exception of the transaction on July 31, 1998, at least a part of each transaction was conducted in an open manner near the bar, where the transaction could easily be viewed by the bartender on duty. Ellie Reardon, Shannon Dowding, and Kathy Harris were aware of, or should have been aware of, the drug activity. Respondent's employees openly condoned it, to the point of actually directing the agents to the sellers and vouching for the reliability of Lyons. The testimony of the Respondent and his employees that they had no idea drugs were being bought and sold in the establishment is rejected because that testimony is contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of the two special agents and to the multiple bags of cocaine that were produced as evidence. NO RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING Respondent took no action to prevent drug activity on the premises. Respondent provided no Responsible Vendor Training pursuant to Section 561.701, Florida Statutes.4 The Respondent never informed his employees that drug use and sales were not to be tolerated on the licensed premises, nor did he instruct them what they should do if they observed drugs being trafficked on the premises. Ms. Reardon, Ms. Dowding, and Ms. Harris testified that they had been given appropriate vendor training by the Respondent. This testimony is rejected as being contrary to the Respondent's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent failed to maintain the good moral character requisite to continued certification as a Correctional Probation Officer in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is James C. Norman, holder of Correctional Probation Certificate 152252. Respondent was employed in the capacity of correctional officer at the Union Correctional Institute. Bruce M. Fitzgerald, personnel manager at Union Correctional Institute, supervises drug screening of correctional officers at the Institute. Fitzgerald set up a drug screen to be administered to Respondent on October 16, 1995. Respondent came to Fitzgerald’s office on that date where Fitzgerald explained the process to Respondent, provided Respondent with a chain of custody form bearing specimen identification number 09A664423, and obtained Respondent’s signature on a Employee Drug Testing Notice. Respondent was instructed to go to Bradford Hospital in Starke, Florida for the collection of his urine sample and submission of that urine sample for the drug screening process. Pamela Langham, a licensed practical nurse for the past 20 years, was working on October 16, 1995, in the Acute Care Office at Bradford Hospital where obtaining specimens for drug screening was a part of her duties. On October 16, 1995, Langham received from Respondent the chain of custody form bearing specimen identification number 09A664423. Langham then followed standard protocol in obtaining Respondent’s urine sample by having Respondent empty his pockets, turn the pockets inside out, take off any loose fitting garments, wash his hands and clean his fingernails, and remove his footwear. Langham then had Respondent go into the restroom and obtain his urine specimen in a container. Respondent returned from the restroom with the container where Langham then gave Respondent the lid for the container. The specimen container was then sealed in Respondent’s presence. Langham had Respondent sign the specimen container. The container was then sealed in a plastic bag upon which Respondent placed his initials. Respondent’s specimen container was then refrigerated for later pick up by a courier and transportation to the laboratory in Tampa, Florida, for analysis. Langham completed a portion of the chain of custody form number 09A664423 which was sent along with the specimen to the laboratory. Michael Dean Miller, an expert in the field of forensic chemistry, is the toxicology manager and records custodian at the laboratory where Respondent’s specimen was received. The laboratory is certified by the State of Florida and nationally accredited by the College of American Pathologists. At the final hearing, Miller presented the documents prepared in the reception and testing of specimen number 09A664423. Respondent’s specimen was received in a sealed package by Enoris Moore at the laboratory on October 16, 1995. The specimen seal was intact and bore no indication that the specimen had been contaminated in any way. The specimen was analyzed and handled in accordance with the requirements of the laboratory and the State of Florida. Respondent’s specimen was tested in accordance with standard and accepted procedures in the industry. The specimen was examined by Mark Bartalini. The specimen tested positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite. Compared to a minimum cut off for testing for drug presence in urine of 150 nanograms, Respondent’s urine sample contained 11,649 nanograms which is considered a high level. This result indicated the actual presence of cocaine metabolite in Respondent’s system. Respondent denied usage of any other compound which may have affected the level of cocaine metabolite found to exist in his urine sample. His additional denial of cocaine consumption prior to the collection of his urine sample is not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 488-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 James C. Norman Post Office Box 651 Raiford, FL 32083 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact During the month of August 1990, petitioner, Gerald J. Vanacker, conspired with one Perry Anthony Laspina (Laspina) to purchase 40 pounds of marijuana (cannabis) in Broward County, Florida, for $34,000.00. Unbeknownst to the conspirators, the person from whom they arranged to purchase the marijuana was a detective with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. The negotiations for the sale were made by telephone, and were primarily between Laspina and the detective; however, the petitioner was present with Laspina when the terms of the agreement were finalized. The basic terms of the agreement were that the detective would deliver 40 pounds of marijuana to Laspina in exchange for $34,000.00. At the actual time of sale, the agreement had been modified, due to a shortage of cash funds, to call for the exchange of $25,000 and the delivery of certain personal property as collateral for the payment of the balance of the agreed upon price. On August 15, 1990, petitioner and Laspina met with two undercover detectives, one of whom was the detective with whom Laspina had negotiated the deal, to purchase the subject marijuana. At that time, one of the detectives took possession of Laspina's car, left the area, loaded it with a 40-pound bale of marijuana, and returned the car and its cargo of marijuana to the site. Thereafter, the trunk was opened, and petitioner and Laspina examined and approved the marijuana. At that point, Laspina entered the detective's car so the money he had brought could be counted and exchanged, and petitioner and the other detective waited in Laspina's car. Shortly thereafter, other detectives arrived on the scene and petitioner and Laspina were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, a felony, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. On August 27, 1990, the respondent, Department of Revenue (Department) issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings which assessed tax and penalties in the amount of $25,500.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of $8.38 per day after September 21, 1990, against the petitioner, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. The factual basis for the assessment was the petitioner's involvement in the marijuana transaction described in the foregoing findings of fact. Following unsuccessful efforts to resolve the matter, petitioner ultimately filed a timely petition seeking a formal hearing to contest the Department's assessment. At hearing, petitioner contended that he was not involved in any sale, use, or distribution of the subject marijuana, but had merely loaned Laspina $9,000.00 so he, Laspina, could purchase the marijuana. In exchange, petitioner expected a "quick turnaround" on his investment in that he expected to be repaid his $9,000.00, together with an additional $2,100.00, the same day that the marijuana was acquired. According to petitioner, he was merely present at the scene to make sure Laspina did not abscond with his money. Petitioner's contention regarding the limited nature of his involvement is contrary to the credible proof which supported the findings of fact hereto made. Moreover, even were petitioner's contentions to be credited, his involvement in the subject sale was likewise so extensive as to make him a conspirator in such unlawful transaction. In sum, the proof supports the conclusion that petitioner did engage in the unlawful use or distribution of cannabis as set forth in the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings, and that the Department's assessment of the tax, surcharge, and interest was reasonable and appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order concluding that petitioner, Gerald J. Vanacker, is liable for taxes, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and assessing the amount of such liability at $25,500.00, plus interest at the rate of $8.38 per day since September 21, 1990. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2712 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Rejected as not a finding of fact. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. 4-23. Addressed in paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6. 24-29. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald J. Van Acker, pro se 1074 S.W. Jennifer Terrace Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Ralph R. Jaeger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Vicki Weber, Esquire J. Thomas Herndon General Counsel Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building 204 Carolton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Forida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On February 17, 1990, Frank Vitale was arrested at or near the ABC Liquors at 3097 Curry Ford Road, Orlando, Florida for trafficking in cocaine (400 grams or more). On February 17, 1990, Noel Frederick Shumann was arrested at or near the ABC Liquors (ABC) at 3097 Curry Ford Road, Orlando, Florida for trafficking in cocaine (400 grams or more). Noel Frederick Shumann was acquitted for both the charges of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine on May 2, 1991. Noel Frederick Shumann was present at the ABC on February 17, 1990. Noel Frederick Shumann denies that he was involved in any illegal drug transactions; however, he admits that an illegal drug transaction occurred on February 17, 1990 at the ABC. Frank Vitale, who was convicted of the charges, testified on behalf of Noel Frederick Shumann at the criminal proceeding. Mr. Vitale's testimony is as follows: That the money used to purchase the estimated retail value of cocaine of $9,400.00 was in fact Mr. Vitale's money. That Mr. Vitale had accumulated this money from the sale of an interest in some green houses and monies from the sale of jewelry from his flea market business. He stored the money at Mr. Shumann's house while living there for a brief period of time. On February 17, 1990, he called Mr. Shumann and asked Mr. Shumann to bring envelopes containing the money to the ABC Lounge. Mr. Vitale was not living at Mr. Shumann's house at the time he called Mr. Shumann and asked him to bring the envelope containing the money to the ABC Lounge. These envelopes were stored in the bedroom Mr. Vitale resided in while living in Mr. Shumann's house. Mr. Shumann acquiesced with Mr. Vitale's request. Mr. Vitale further testified that Mr. Shumann had nothing to do with the drug transaction, did not know there was a drug transaction taking place at the ABC Lounge until such time as he arrived and remained at the lounge for a period of time. Mr. Vitale further testified that Mr. Shumann was not to share in the cocaine or any expected profits from the sale of the cocaine. The drug transaction involved 500 grams of cocaine. The estimated retail value of the cocaine was $9,400.00. The money used to purchase the cocaine was in Noel Frederick Shumann's vehicle. Mr. Shumann was assessed on February 26, 1990, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, for the delinquent tax, penalty and interest relating to the drug transaction which took place on February 17, 1990. The jeopardy assessment is a correct and proper assessment both as to form and content of an illegal drug transaction involving cocaine with the retail value of $9,400.00. Mr. Shumann does not contest the mathematical accuracy of the tax assessment nor the procedures followed in issuing the notice. Mr. Shumann has not paid the sales tax assessed and the amount claimed has not been paid by another on his behalf. Mr. Shumann asserts that the assessment is improper only because he was not personally involved in the illegal transaction and, therefore, committed no act to give rise to the tax. Consequently, he argues the assessment against him should be dismissed. Prior to February 17, 1990, Agent Cannon, an undercover narcotics investigator, was introduced to Frank Vitale. Mr. Vitale met Agent Cannon through a third party, a confidential informant, named Barbara Anderson. Ms. Anderson advised Agent Cannon that Mr. Vitale wanted to purchase cocaine. Ms. Anderson had known Mr. Vitale for some time prior to February 17, 1990. On some occasion prior to February 17, 1990, Mr. Vitale spoke to Ms. Anderson regarding his partner in the drug transaction. When Noel Frederick Shumann arrived at the ABC on February 17, 1990, Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to Ms. Anderson as "his partner." Because he remained present during the activities that followed, and because he told Ms. Anderson that he was there to keep an eye on his money, Ms. Anderson presumed Mr. Shumann was the partner in the drug transaction to whom Mr. Vitale had earlier referred. When Agent Cannon arrived to complete the drug transaction, Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to him as his partner but maintained he (Vitale) would be handling the deal. In fact, Mr. Vitale became very upset any time Agent Cannon attempted to speak with Mr. Shumann instead of dealing with him exclusively. At one point in time, Agent Cannon threatened to abort the transaction since Mr. Vitale would not let him count the money. The money, which was stored in Mr. Shumann's car at that time, was not counted until Mr. Shumann told Mr. Vitale to let Agent Cannon count the money. Mr. Shumann was aware that Mr. Vitale was attempting to purchase cocaine from Agent Cannon and was aware that the money to be utilized in that purchase was in his (Shumann's) car. During a second conversation, Mr. Shumann directed Mr. Vitale to weigh and test the cocaine to be purchased and to proceed with the transaction if the substance looked good. Mr. Vitale then left the lounge with Agent Cannon and proceeded across the street to the van where Agent Cannon's partner was located with the drugs. Following the exchange of the money for the cocaine, Mr. Vitale was placed under arrest and the MBI team converged. Subsequently, Mr. Vitale and Mr. Shumann were placed in a police patrol car that was wired to record their conversation. The taped conversation (Petitioner's exhibit 1) contains statements by Mr. Vitale to the effect that he knew the police were listening, that he was sorry to get Mr. Shumann into "this," and that Mr. Shumann should "put everything on me (Vitale)." During the counting of the money, the weighing and testing of the cocaine, and the sale and purchase of the cocaine between Agent Cannon and Mr. Vitale, Mr. Shumann remained in the lounge. Mr. Shumann continued to talk to Ms. Anderson even though he knew a cocaine transaction was proceeding, knew that he had been introduced as Mr. Vitale's partner, knew that the money for the transaction was stored first in his house then in his vehicle, and knew that the supplier (Agent Cannon) had sought authorization from him to count the money and complete the deal. It is wholly incredible to conclude that a disinterested party would have remained in the lounge throughout the foregoing events. Cocaine is a controlled substance as defined by Florida law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order confirming the notice of assessment and jeopardy findings and finding the amount due to be $10,575.00 plus interest (1% per month until paid). DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Petitioner submitted proposed findings in a form such that rulings cannot be entered. Petitioner summarized: the testimony of Chuck Cannon; the testimony of Mr. Shumann; the patrol car tape (Petitioner's ex. 1); the stipulated statements of facts submitted by the parties; the deposition of Vernon Taylor; and the testimony of Barbara Anderson. Such summaries did not present paragraphs with factual allegations in a form such that specific rulings can be made. Such summaries included argument, irrelevant information and comment on the evidence. Except as set forth in the findings of fact above, they must be rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or as argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent listed the stipulated facts submitted by the parties. They have been accepted and incorporated in the foregoing recommended order as findings of fact. As to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent, which began on page 4 of the proposed order, the following specific rulings are given. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Mr. Vitale introduced Mr. Shumann to Ms. Anderson as his partner. It is not accepted that he specifically told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Shumann was his partner in this drug transaction. That factual conclusion has been reached based upon a preponderance of all evidence presented in this case. Paragraphs 11 through 20 are accepted. Copies to: Robert J. Buonauro 14 E. Washington Street Suite 602 Orlando, Florida 32801 James McAuley Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
