The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act or acts of age discrimination against Petitioner by not selecting him for promotion to sergeant with the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Steven L. Boles, was employed at the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office in April 2001 as a deputy sheriff. Petitioner's date of birth is June 15, 1958, making him approximately 47-48 years old at all times related to the promotion issues, which are the subject of this proceeding. Petitioner completed 34 college classes while a deputy sheriff and attained a Bachelor's Degree from Troy State University. He was continuing his education towards a Master's Degree during the promotion period at issue. Petitioner had over 20 years' experience in the United States Air Force, during which his duties included managing a 24-person flight, supervising, planning, administering, and executed law enforcement and security training for a 270-person unit. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement recognized Petitioner's qualifications as being equivalent to those required by the State of Florida for certified law enforcement officers. During Petitioner's time as a deputy sheriff, he worked one position besides his road patrol duties. In 2003, he transferred to a property detective position where he served for almost a year. When he did not receive training that he deemed necessary to better perform his job, he transferred back to his road patrol position. Petitioner was certified as an all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") instructor in April 2006. Petitioner did not serve in a supervisory capacity while employed by Respondent. Under Sheriff Wendell Hall's administration, the promotional process for sergeant and lieutenant was established in General Order D-017. Applicants were ranked on an eligibility list based upon their scoring for specific criteria: advanced training courses, formal education, seniority, supervisory experience, written examinations, and an oral review board. Sheriff Hall promoted from the top of the list in order of ranking. The Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") is the bargaining agent for deputy sheriffs. During collective bargaining negotiations in 2005, the FOP asked Sheriff Hall to change the promotional process to provide greater flexibility in promotions. The FOP believes that the top-ranked applicant is not necessarily the best candidate for an available position. The sheriff and the FOP executed a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") in 2005 to implement changes in the promotional process that would afford more flexibility. Pursuant to Article 9 of the CBA, the parties agreed that General Order D-017 would be utilized in promotions. To effect the changes requested by the FOP, General Order D-017 was revised in December 2005. The new policy continued to provide that applicants would be ranked based upon scoring for specific criteria, but added field training officer experience ("FTO") as a new category to be scored. Additionally, the policy provided that the division captains and department major would review the promotion roster and provide a written recommendation to the sheriff for promotion of candidates. The sheriff would be provided with the top five names for one vacancy and one additional name for each additional vacancy. The new policy for promotion was provided to the FOP for review prior to its enactment. Pursuant to the CBA, the FOP could request impact bargaining within ten days of receipt of the policy. Because the FOP did not object to the policy, it became effective on December 26, 2005. The revised policy, General Order D-017, was provided to all members of Respondent, including Petitioner. Petitioner was aware that the process had been changed to permit the division captains and the department major to make written recommendations for promotion. Petitioner received a memorandum from Sheriff Hall on February 17, 2006, informing him of his eligibility to sit for the written promotion examination on March 22, 2006. Petitioner learned in that memorandum that credit for training courses and formal education would not be given for anything that had not occurred and was not present in the training office on or before March 10, 2006. When vacancies for sergeant and lieutenant became available in 2006, the promotional process followed the revised policy. Points were allocated to the applicants under the revised criteria, and the top 20 candidates were ranked. Major Steve Collier and Captains Jack Onkka and Jim Spencer met on May 26, 2006, pursuant to the newly-adopted policy, to review the applicants and make promotion recommendations to the sheriff. Because there were six vacancies for sergeant, the top 10 names on the roster were reviewed. Petitioner was ranked number five on the roster. Major Collier and Captains Onkka and Spencer concluded that the primary consideration for the recommendations for sergeant and lieutenant would be the motivation and initiative displayed by the applicants while employed at the Sheriff's Office. Believing that these qualities demonstrate the foundation of leadership, Collier, Onkka, and Spencer discussed each of the applicants to determine who best exemplified these characteristics. Collier, Onkka, and Spencer recommended six applicants who were ranked in the top 10 of the promotional roster: George Hawkins, Joseph Dunne, William Dunsford, Wayne Enterkin, Jerry Salter, and Todd Reaves. Prior to the review by Collier, Onkka, and Spencer, three of these deputies were ranked higher in the roster than Petitioner and three of them were ranked lower. The reviewers selected these six deputies for promotion to sergeant because each had undertaken an assignment outside his normal duties or otherwise had distinguished himself in a manner that set him apart from the other candidates. George Hawkins, ranked number one on the roster, was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience. Further, he performed as an acting supervisor when the shift sergeant was absent, which the reviewers deemed significant. Field officer training was particularly valued by the reviewers because it required the deputy to serve as a front line supervisor for trainees as well as an instructor and mentor. Joseph Dunne also had performed field officer training and consistently volunteered for special operations projects that were after hours. William Dunsford, although not a FTO, was a member of the hostage negotiation team and, pursuant to this assignment, was on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Similar to Dunne, Dunsford volunteered for special operations after hours. He particularly impressed Major Collier with noteworthy arrests and for his high level of professionalism and motivation. Wayne Enterkin was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience and his initiation of the drug court officers program, which involved juvenile offenders. He particularly distinguished himself in the drug court program. Jerry Salter was recommended as a result of field officer training experience and his assignment to the special weapons and tactics ("SWAT") team. As in the case of hostage negotiators, SWAT team members must undergo additional tactical training and are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They must also maintain a high level of physical fitness to participate in this unit. Todd Reaves was recommended because of his field officer training experience and his participation on the hostage negotiation team. Reeves also made noteworthy arrests in the northern part of the county, which was not a particularly busy area. Reeves had also received a lifesaver award for his extraordinary actions in providing care to a canine officer who was shot by a suspect. Petitioner was not recommended because the reviewers were not aware of any activities and assignments that set him apart from the other candidates. They were unaware of the fact that Petitioner had become certified as an ATV instructor, since that occurred on April 21, 2006, after the March 10, 2006, information deadline. The reviewing panel would not have given as much credit for Petitioner being an ATV instructor, even if his certification had occurred before March 10, 2006, since this activity did not require as much of a time commitment as a field training officer, hostage negotiation team member, or SWAT team member. The panel also passed over William Bass (ranked number two on the roster) and Christian Turcic (ranked number seven). Deputy Bass was deemed not particularly motivated and refused a transfer to a busier district when it was offered. Deputy Turcic was passed so he could complete his new assignment as a trainer of a new dog. Once he completed his assignment, he received a promotion to sergeant in September 2006. The age of the candidates for promotion was not a topic discussed by the reviewing panel. Sheriff Hall promoted Deputies Dunne, Dunsford, Enterkin, Hawkins, Reeves, and Salter in June 2006. He based his decision to promote these deputies upon the recommendations of his staff without regard to their age. When Petitioner became aware of the identities of the promoted deputies, he tendered a brief letter of resignation, dated June 15, 2006, in which he stated that his total loss of faith in the administration caused the need for him to leave immediately. Petitioner followed the brief letter with an email to Sheriff Hall on June 16, 2006, in which he elaborated on his qualifications and justifications of why he should have received a promotion to sergeant. Petitioner informed Sheriff Hall that he believed a "good-ol-boy system" was in place in the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office. In his letter and email resigning from Respondent, Petitioner made no mention of his age as a factor in his failure to be promoted to sergeant. Petitioner never inquired as to why he was not promoted. He met with Sheriff Hall, who informed him that he could be considered for promotion at a later date and encouraged him to contact Major Collier. Petitioner never spoke with Major Collier regarding his failure to be promoted to sergeant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven L. Boles 262 County Road 617 Hanceville, Alabama 35077 Robert W. Evans, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference- the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6780 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that the certificate was signed by Moore, who did not testify at the hearing. Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. (This ruling is related to the second proposed finding identified as "4".) Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. Respondent The Respondent filed a letter containing unnumbered paragraphs which is treated herein as a proposed recommended order. The paragraph beginning "I TAKE EXCEPTION" is regarded as paragraph #1. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1, 2. Rejected. The proposed finding is applicable to the weight of the testimony which clearly established that the witness received an inadequate level of instruction. 3. Rejected. The Respondent stipulated to the fact that Dale and Moore were in the same class. The stipulation was placed on the record. The Petitioner released Moore from testifying based on the stipulation. 4, 6-12. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 DV's Security Guard School Stephen Paul DeVillo 10871 Ruden Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917-5513
Findings Of Fact Based on the documentary evidence received, the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 18, 1982, Mr. General G. Foreman, Petitioner herein, was advised that his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses had been denied based on "fraud or willful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license." Chapter 493.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner timely applied for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, concerning the denial of his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses by the Division of Licensing. 1/ Documentary evidence herein reveals that the Petitioner has been arrested ten times during the period April, 1950 through May, 1982. On Petitioner's application filed during approximately July, 1982, he listed two arrests during the period March, 1955 through approximately November, 1970. Petitioner listed (on the subject application) a trespassing charge which occurred during April, 1950, the outcome of which resulted in a conviction, and during November, 1969 or 1970, a rape charge which was "thrown out, dismissed." In the processing of applications for guard licenses, the Respondent conducts background investigations through fingerprint checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other local law enforcement agencies. The Respondent reviewed a "rap" sheet from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and based on a consideration of the ten (10) occasions which the Petitioner had been arrested, an administrative determination was made that the Petitioner failed to fully disclose arrests. For that reason, Petitioner's application for the above-referred guard licenses was denied. (Testimony of Debbie Richards, Respondent's guard license application investigator). The Petitioner listed the tow charges which "bears" on his mind and the other arrests were not listed since they had no "bearing on his mind." Petitioner contends that he made no effort to "hide" anything. Further, Petitioner related that he, to this date, is unable to recall, with any specificity, the exact number of times that he has been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for statewide Class "D" and "G" security guard licenses. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner seeks licensure as both an armed and an unarmed security guard ("F" and "G" licenses). In support of his applications he submitted the required health certificate for a "Statewide Gun Permit" as well as his "Certificate of Firearms Proficiency" and the required affidavit attesting to his character and to his experience as a security guard. A "Temporary Gun License," No. 18279, was issued to the Petitioner on August 25, 1980. On October 27, 1980, the Respondent ultimately, by letter of that date, denied his application for licensure and informed him of his right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely elected to exercise that right and to adduce evidence supportive of his petition. The grounds for the denial were respectively that there was a substantial connection between an alleged lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner and the business for which he sought the license and that he fraudulently or willfully misrepresented his status in answering questions on the applications specifically the question regarding his prior arrest record. Additionally, the application was denied on the grounds that the Petitioner had in the past been found guilty of a crime which directly related to the business for which he seeks the license. The Petitioner, in answering the question regarding past arrests, admitted that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1959. The Petitioner did not complete the answer regarding the disposition of that arrest, but candidly admitted at the hearing that he was confined in the state prison at Raiford, Florida for five years after being convicted of armed robbery and also candidly admitted a record for various other petty offenses in 1941, 1945 and 1946, none of which three incidents involved a sentence of longer than three months. On December 23, 1947, in Bartow, Polk County, Florida he was sentenced to three years in the state prison at Raiford for grand larceny. He was discharged from confinement on May 4, 1950. The uncontroverted testimony of the Petitioner at the hearing established that, although he was convicted and sentenced for grand larceny, the articles which he was convicted of stealing were: a watermelon, a cinnamon roll and a can of sardines. The Petitioner's only other conviction and confinement occurred in 1959 when he was convicted for armed robbery. The Petitioner served out this sentence and was discharged and has had no altercations with the law since that time. Give the basis upon which the application was denied, some elaboration of the circumstances surrounding that armed robbery conviction are appropriate. The Petitioner's stepson was employed by a trucking company as a driver and periodically made collections of large amounts of cash from freight customers of the truck line. Due to their dire financial circumstances at the time the Petitioner, his stepson, and the Petitioner's wife apparently entered into an arrangement whereby the stepson would alert them of the day and time on which he would be making collections of large amounts of cash so that the trio could convert the company receipts to their own use. According to the Petitioner's uncontroverted testimony, the Petitioner, armed with a lead pipe instead of a gun, as the charge had indicated, in conspiracy with his stepson and wife staged an apparent robbery to cover the actual theft of the company's funds. In any event, the trio were apprehended and in the subsequent negotiations or the trial, the Petitioner elected to assume sole responsibility for the "robbery" in order to protect the freedom and record of his wife and stepson. Consequently, the Petitioner was sentenced to five years for armed robbery and served out his sentence. The Petitioner thus established with credible, uncontroverted testimony that this armed robbery conviction actually did not stem from the forceable taking of the property of another with a firearm, but rather was a staged, "phony" robbery to cover a simple theft of the funds in question. The Hearing Officer is impressed with the obvious candor and forthrightness of the Petitioner in describing the events surrounding this and his other miscreant conduct in his distant past and with his continued remorse at its having occurred. Since his release from the state penitentiary in 1962, Mr. Walker has had no legal difficulties whatever. Per the last fifteen years or so he has been employed as a security guard for various security agencies in the Dade County area, primarily as an unarmed security guard, but serving at least one stint for an agency as an armed security guard, apparently by local authority. The Petitioner presented evidence at the hearing of a previously valid unarmed security guard license he has held, as well as the temporary gun license issued August 28, 1980. He also presented evidence in the form of identification cards and a badge establishing his employment as a security guard in the past, pursuant to Chapter 493, by a number of private security firms in the Dade County area. He has worked in a number of large department stores and warehouses wherein valuable merchandise was stored or kept and has never been involved in any incident involving theft of such goods. Escambia County recently saw fit to employ him temporarily as a security guard at Pensacola High School. He has had good working relationships with law enforcement authorities in his capacity as a security guard both in Dade and Escambia Counties and offered to bring to the hearing members of law enforcement agencies and the clergy in both counties to attest to his good conduct since his release from prison, nineteen years ago. The Petitioner freely acknowledged at the hearing that his answer to Question 13 on his applications did not disclose his entire arrest record, however, he states that he does not write well and had the secretary at the security firm where he was working at the time, in Dade County, fill out the applications for him. He maintains that he told the secretary all information about his criminal record and assumed that she had put it down, but signed the application hurriedly because he had to report for work and signed it as he was leaving the firm's office. He repeatedly demonstrated at the hearing that he had nothing to hide regarding his criminal record and was genuinely remorseful for its existence. He described in detail the various convictions and stipulated to the evidence of his criminal record which the Respondent offered. The Petitioner also demonstrated that during those times when he has worked as an armed security guard, primarily in Dade County, he has never had to use or display his gun to anyone and only wishes the use of a gun now for his own protection, since in his experience at his last job with the Ford Detective Agency in Dade County, the position became too dangerous for a security guard to occupy without having a firearm for protection. The Petitioner is now in his sixties and due to a slight heart condition is living entirely on Social Security disability income. He expressed the desire to go hack into security guard work in order to provide enough income to support himself, his wife and his young grandson whom he is helping to rear and who accompanied him to the hearing. He obviously has a keen desire to be able to support himself and his family without, as he put it, having to "live on the County" or the public treasury. He feels that security guard work is a duty he can readily fulfill despite his age since lie is of otherwise robust health, has substantial experience as a security guard, and the job is not a strenuous one. He has job offers with the St. Regis Paper Company and the Exxon Oil Company as well as the local newspaper. He is now working part-time collecting money for the local newspaper which is a dangerous job in his view in that he sometimes carries large amounts of cash in "high crime areas" of the county. He feels that he needs the right to possess a firearm for his own protection. Since his release from prison Mr. Walker has obviously undergone a profound change in his way of life away from repetitive confrontations with the law. He has become an exemplary family man, a church man and a Mason. He does not use alcohol or drugs whatever. He demonstrates significant independence and responsibility of character at his rather advanced age in wanting to obtain another job to support is family, rather than relying on relatives or the public treasury for subsistence.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the arguments of the parties it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, granting the Petitioner's application for licensure, both as an armed and an unarmed security guard. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Room 1801, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Curley Walker Post Office Box 619 Century, Florida 32535
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1996, Petitioner revoked Respondent's Class "D" security officer license number D95-12548 and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in security services and to return to Petitioner Respondent's license. That Final Order certifies that a copy was mailed to Respondent that day. Respondent did not return his license to Petitioner. On November 1, 1996, Fred Speaker, the investigator supervisor in Petitioner's West Palm Beach office, went to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent asserted that he did not know where his license was. Respondent did not produce his license. On November 12 Speaker returned to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent was not there, and Respondent's wife did not produce Respondent's license. On April 17, 1997, while Speaker and investigator Jack D'Ambrosio were checking security posts and licenses, they encountered Respondent who was on duty at the gate house of a private community. They asked Respondent for his company identification and his guard license. Respondent produced both documents for their inspection. Petitioner's employees did not take Respondent's license that evening since they wished first to verify if the license were still revoked before taking Respondent's license from him. Sometime subsequent to that date, D'Ambrosio saw Respondent in Petitioner's office and again asked Respondent for his license. Respondent refused to give his license to D'Ambrosio.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Giordano, pro se 3655 Coelebs Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as an unarmed security guard and an armed security guard. In response to Question #13 on the application, "Have you ever been arrested?", Petitioner answered "yes" and indicated he was sentenced to 18 months for "buying and receiving" in 1971. Petitioner's complete criminal record is as follows: Arrested Charge Sentenced 1967 Willful misuse without right of 1967, six months a motor vehicle 1968 Willful misuse without right of 1968, two years' a motor vehicle probation 1969 Aggravated assault 1969, dismissed 1969 Willful misuse without a motor vehicle right of 1970, 158 days 1970 Receiving a stolen auto 1971, 18 months 1971 Escape, auto robbery, robbery 1971, years total 25 concurrent 1980 Arrested auto theft Charge dropped February 1981 Possession of a concealed weapon Dismissed February 1982 Possession of a concealed weapon Pending The 1967 arrest and conviction occurred when the Petitioner was approximately 16 years old. Petitioner admitted that he had taken the cars as alleged for joyriding as a youth. Petitioner explained that he was sentenced to the state correctional institution for possession of a rental car which he had borrowed from a friend, who had stolen it. Petitioner admitted he had escaped from prison, had stolen a car, and had been recaptured when he ran out of gas in Perry, Florida. Petitioner served eight years in prison and two years of probation of the 25 years' sentence imposed on him. Since his release from prison, the Petitioner has worked as a truck driver, roofer, security guard and mechanic. He has married and lives with his father-in-law, his wife and her two children by a previous marriage. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored to him except for the right to bear arms. He has petitioned to have that right restored. The Petitioner testified that he was issued a temporary pistol permit and issued a firearm by his employer, "Globe," and that he worked in an armed guard post on a building project in Miami. He worked hard as a security guard, frequently worked double shifts, had obtained two promotions, and was being considered for a third promotion when he was terminated as a result of the denial by the Division of Licensing. All charges made against the Petitioner since his release from prison have been dismissed except the charge of possession of a concealed weapon made in February of 1982, which the Petitioner fully disclosed. Petitioner had purchased a .38 calibre revolver, thinking that he was authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the temporary pistol permit. It was this weapon that was discovered and for which he was charged in February of 1982. The Petitioner understood at the hearing that the temporary pistol permit did not authorize him to purchase or possess a firearm. Petitioner demonstrated a working knowledge of the limits of his authority as a security guard and secured his issued weapon in accordance with the company's rules and applicable regulations. The Petitioner presented a letter from his former supervisor at Globe, attesting to his good work, and a letter from a friend and neighbor attesting to his good conduct since his release from prison. Leroy Dowdell, who lives across from where the Petitioner now works, testified concerning Petitioner's reputation. Petitioner possesses a good reputation in the neighborhood. Dowdell stated he would trust the Petitioner to guard his personal property. The Petitioner stated that he wanted to be licensed because he could earn good money to support himself and his family, and that a knee injury and his criminal record had kept him from finding well-paid employment. Petitioner lacks a high school education. The Petitioner stated he did not list the offenses related to his escape because they occurred while he was in jail for the offense which he did list and were part of that record. Petitioner's testimony was uncontroverted.
Recommendation The Petitioner having established his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and respect for the law, he should be granted an unarmed security guard license; however, Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Willie James Summersett 2268 NW 51st Terrace Miami, Florida 33142 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Christopher Hargraves, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "B" Security Agency License, Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit, and Class "MB" Manager of Security Agency License.
Findings Of Fact At all timed pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher W. Hargraves (Respondent/Mr.Hargraves), was the holder of Class "B" Security Agency License No. B87-00007, Class "MB" Security Agency Manager License No. MB 90-000019, and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License No. G91-00245. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hargraves was president of Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention Associated, Inc. (Protection Unlimited), a company which provided security services in the Tampa Bay area. The address of record for Protection Unlimited is 1511 Clement Road, Lutz, Florida 33549. Mack Cummings began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in early 1996 and worked there until late 1996. At the time Mr. Cummings was employed to work as a security guard for Protection Unlimited, he was also employed by Providence Security. As a security officer for Providence Security, Mr. Cummings' assigned posts were three Checkers Restaurants located in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Cummings' shift at Checkers began at 8:00 p.m. and ended between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. The variation in the time Mr. Cummings' shift ended was due to and coincided with the time the particular Checkers' manager completed the restaurant's closing. When Mr. Cummings was employed by Protection Unlimited, he was assigned to work at Channel 13, a television facility located in Tampa, Florida. When he was being considered for the position of security officer, Mr. Cummings told Respondent about his assignment with Providence Security and advised Respondent that he would be unable to report to Channel 13 until after midnight. Nonetheless, Mr. Cummings was scheduled to begin his shift at Channel 13 at midnight. As a result of his employment at Providence Security, Mr. Cummings usually did not report for duty at Channel 13 until after midnight. Respondent was aware that on many nights Mr. Cummings was not reporting to Channel 13 until much later than midnight. Steven Cox worked for Protection Unlimited as a security officer during most of 1995. As a security guard for Protection Unlimited, Mr. Cox' assigned posts were Channel 13 and a yacht, the Claire T. While working at Channel 13, Mr. Cox performed security duties in plain clothes. At the time Mr. Cox was employed by Protection Unlimited, no uniforms were issued to him. Mr. Hargraves issued uniforms to Mr. Cox approximately two months after Mr. Cox began working for Protection Unlimited. David Gilbert was hired as a security officer with Protection Unlimited on or about July 10, 1995. Mr. Gilbert often worked with Steven Cox while both were employed with Protection Unlimited. During this time, Mr. Cox often observed Gilbert performing security duties in civilian clothes, rather than in a uniform. Michael Munger began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in late 1994 and worked for that agency for approximately nine months. As an employee of Protection Unlimited, Mr. Munger was assigned to Channel 13. Although Mr. Munger performed security duties at Channel 13, he was never provided with a uniform and thus, performed these duties in plain clothes. Willie Lee began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in June 1995 and worked for the agency until January 1996. Mr. Lee's assigned post was Channel 13. When Mr. Lee was initially employed by Protection Unlimited, he was not issued an agency identification card. A month or two after Mr. Lee was employed by Protection Unlimited, Respondent gave him a card which Respondent referred to as an agency identification card. The only information contained on the card was "Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc.," the typewritten name "Willie Lee," and Mr. Lee's signature. Also, the "agency card" had spaces designated "photo" and "agency representative," although the card contained neither a photo of Mr. Lee nor the signature or name of the agency representative. Barbara Norman was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited for several weeks in 1995. Respondent never provided Ms. Norman with uniforms to wear while she was performing security duties. Moreover, Ms. Norman had only a Class "D" license and therefore was not authorized to work as an "armed guard." Consistent with this Class "D" license, Protection Unlimited did not provide Ms. Norman with a firearm while she worked at Channel 13. However, she was told to wear an empty holster. Glen Davis was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in 1996. Mr. Davis was assigned to the Claire T yacht. Mr. Davis was not issued uniforms to wear while conducting security duties for Protection Unlimited. On April 8, 1996, Gary Floyd and Gene Blicth, investigator for the Department, performed a proactive inspection of the Claire T while Mr. Davis was on duty and observed that Mr. Davis was not wearing a uniform. William Scott was employed with Protection Unlimited in February 1996 and continued working for the agency until July 1996. While employed with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott worked as a both a security guard and as acting supervisor for the agency. During the time that Mr. Scott worked for Protection Unlimited, he usually relieved by Mack Cummings or Steve Pritchard, also employees of Protection Unlimited. One night Mr. Pritchard did not report to work and no guard was or came on duty when Mr. Scott's assigned shift ended. Several times during his employment with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott needed to leave Channel 13 before the end of his shift. In these instances, and before leaving his post early, Mr. Scott gave prior notice to Respondent. Upon being so informed, Respondent told Mr. Scott that he should not indicate on the log that he had left his post early. As acting supervisor with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott was aware that Respondent routinely generated scheduling documents, time sheets, and payment schedules related to the operations of Protection Unlimited. Mr. Scott observed Respondent throw away many of these documents. The documents that Respondent discarded were less than two years old. On or about March 8, 1996, Investigator Floyd performed a proactive inspection of the yacht, the Claire T. At the site, he spoke with a man who identified himself as Rocky Cocozza. Mr. Cocozza was working as a security guard on the vessel and produced an agency identification card from Protection Unlimited. During this inspection, Mr. Cocozza was wearing black trousers and a black jacket. Under the jacket, Mr. Cocozza was wearing a blue short-sleeve shirt which contained an emblem identifying the employing agency; the emblem was on the left side of the shirt, just above the pocket. However, the emblem on the shirt could not necessarily be seen when Mr. Cocozza was wearing the black jacket. On March 18, 1996, Investigator Floyd was on the premises of Channel 13. As he was leaving that facility, Investigator Floyd observed Respondent performing security duties in the reception area. Investigator Floyd then approached Respondent and asked to see his agency identification card. Respondent did not produce a current agency identification card. On or about May 3, 1996, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's address of record to inquire about matters related to Protection Unlimited. After determining that no one was on the premises, Investigator Floyd left one of his business cards on the door of Respondent's address of record. On the card, Investigator Floyd wrote, "Chris, please call." The note on the card was directed to Respondent, whose first name is Christopher. Later that same day, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's residence. After Respondent's wife told Investigator Floyd that Respondent was not at home, Investigator Floyd gave one of his business cards to Respondent's wife and requested that she give it to Respondent. On the card given to Respondent's wife, Investigator Floyd also wrote a note requesting that Respondent call him. After waiting two months and receiving no response from Respondent, Investigator Floyd left several telephone messages for Respondent between July 10 and July 29, 1996. The telephone messages were left with Respondent's answering service and requested that Respondent return Investigator Floyd's calls. Although Respondent's answering service confirmed to Investigator Floyd that all of his messages had been conveyed to Respondent, Respondent never returned Investigator Floyd's telephone calls. On August 20, 1996, Investigator Floyd reached Respondent by telephone and scheduled a meeting with Respondent for August 22, 1996. On the day of the scheduled meeting, Respondent called Investigator Floyd and canceled the meeting. The following day, August 23, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent at the Channel 13 security desk and, again, attempted to schedule a meeting with Respondent. Respondent indicated that he would call Investigator Floyd the following Monday, August 26, 1996, to schedule a meeting. After he had not heard from Respondent by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent to schedule a meeting. During the August 26, 1996 telephone conversation, Respondent refused to set a date to meet with Investigator Floyd, indicating that he was too busy. However, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he would call him the next week to schedule a meeting. Because he previously had been unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting with Respondent, after speaking with Respondent by telephone on August 26, 1998, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 and served Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena required Respondent to produce and provide the Department with various records maintained and related to the business operations of Protection Unlimited. The documents requested by the subpoena included the following: weekly assignment schedules; daily guard logs; time sheets; payroll records; personnel records of specified employees; and Employee Action Reports from January 1995 through March 1995, December 1995 through February 1996, and January 1996 through August 1996. Respondent failed to provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Respondent provided several of the requested documents but many of them appeared to have some of the information on them obliterated with "white out." With regard to several of the requested documents, Mr. Hargraves noted on the subpoena that the records could not be located. On or about September 3, 1996, after receiving some of the documents Respondent had provided pursuant to the subpoena, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 to speak with Respondent about the documents that had been requested. Upon arrival at Channel 13, Investigator Floyd told Respondent that he had a tape recorder and was recording the conversation. Respondent then refused to speak with Investigator Floyd and ejected him from the Channel 13 premises. Once Respondent ejected Investigator Floyd, Respondent went inside the Channel 13 building and locked the door. Investigator Floyd met with Respondent and his attorney on September 6, 1996, at the address of record for Protection Unlimited. During the meeting, Investigator Floyd discussed several areas of concern with Protection Unlimited, including the following: (1) general record keeping and record retention procedures; (2) filing of hiring and termination notices with Petitioner; (3) occupational license; (4) branch offices; and (5) general liability insurance. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, with regard to record keeping, Respondent acknowledged that he was a poor record keeper and that he routinely threw away records that he believed were no longer of use to him. Moreover, during this meeting, Respondent stated that he did not always file hiring and termination notices with Petitioner. During the course of his investigation, Investigator Floyd determined that Channel 13 permitted Respondent to bill for security guard services two weeks in advance. Based on a review of invoices from mid-December 1995 to August 1996, to Channel 13 from Respondent, Investigator Floyd found that Respondent had billed Channel 13 for his agency's services two weeks in advance. However, Respondent failed to make adjustments on subsequent invoices, to reflect a reduction in the actual number of hours worked by some security officers. For example, in July 1996, Respondent's invoices do not reflect the approximately nineteen hours that Mark Cummings was not actually at Channel 13. An investigation by Petitioner substantiated Respondent's admission that he did not always file hiring and termination notices. Among employees hired by Protection Unlimited, but for whom notices of hiring were not filed, were Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, William Scott, and Willie Lee. Furthermore, the Department's investigation found that Respondent failed to file termination notices for several of his employees, including William Scott, Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, and Willie Lee. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Respondent showed Investigator Floyd a Hillsborough County occupational license for Protection Unlimited. The license was dated September 5, 1996, and indicated that it was an initial issue, although Protection Unlimited had been in business since at least 1994. During the course of that meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his agency did not have an occupational license prior to the one dated September 5, 1996. Investigator Floyd discussed the issue of branch offices with Respondent during the September 6, 1996 meeting. At that time, Respondent acknowledged that he had no branch office license. This admission by Respondent is confirmed by Petitioner's records which revealed that Respondent had no branch office license for any location, including 3213 West Kennedy, Tampa, Florida, the location of Channel 13. Despite not having a branch office license which authorized him to carry on business activities such as interviewing potential employees at a location other than his address of record, Respondent routinely conducted such activities at Channel 13, located 3213 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Newspaper advertisements by Protection Unlimited, included a Channel 13 telephone number. When individuals called that number to inquire about available security officer positions, prospective job applicants were directed to come to Channel 13 for their job interview. During the time relevant to this proceeding, numerous job interviews to fill security officer positions for Protection Unlimited were routinely conducted at Channel 13. During the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees when they were hired. Respondent answered affirmatively and indicated that he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees before "they ever set foot" on their assigned post. The statement by Respondent that he always provided agency identification cards to employees upon hiring them is false in light of the credible testimony of Willie Lee that he performed his security duties for Protection Unlimited for at least a month before receiving his agency identification card. During the September 6, 1996, meeting between Investigator Floyd and Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he either permitted or had knowledge of his employees working in plain clothes while performing security duties. In response to this inquiry, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he neither permitted nor had knowledge that employees wore plain clothes while performing security duties for his company. The statement made by Respondent to Investigator Floyd was a false statement. The credible testimony of Barbara Norman and Glenn Davis, both employees of Protection Unlimited, was that Respondent never issued them uniforms in which to perform their security duties and, as a result thereof, they performed their duties in plain clothes. Furthermore, the credible testimony of Michael Munger and Steve Cox was that as employees of Protection Unlimited, they performed security duties in plain clothes. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Respondent was at the Channel 13 and observed that many times these employees were performing security duties while not in uniforms. Another issue addressed by Investigator Floyd during the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent concerned the required reporting of individuals who had been employed by Protection Unlimited. When asked by Investigator Floyd whether he had ever employed Barbara Norman and Michael Munger as security guards for Protection Unlimited, Respondent answered in the negative. This statement by Respondent is false in light of the credible testimony of Barabara Norman and Michael Munger. Ms. Norman and Mr. Munger were employed by and worked for Protection Unlimited in 1995. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent to provide proof of the required general liability insurance for Respondent's agency. Respondent implied that he had the required insurance coverage, but at that time had no proof of such coverage. However, Mr. Hargraves told Investigator Floyd that he would have his insurance company fax documentary evidence that Protection Unlimited had the required insurance. Although Mr. Hargraves indicated that he would request that the insurance company fax the information to Investigator Floyd that same day, no such proof of insurance was ever provided to Investigator Floyd. Respondent routinely performed duties as a security officer at Channel 13 during the period between March 1996 and August 1996, inclusive, although he did not have a Class "D" Security Officer License. Respondent routinely carried a concealed firearm while on duty as a security officer during the time period April 1995 to July 1996. Respondent told Glenn Davis that if investigators from the Department came to the Claire T, Mr. Davis was not to allow them on the post. Respondent indicated to Mr. Davis that he would be fired if he cooperated with the Department. Respondent also told Mr. Scott that he was not to speak with Department investigators and that if the investigators came to his assigned post, Mr. Scott was to have the police remove the investigators from the premises. Respondent told Mr. Pritchard not to speak with any investigators from the Department and to call the police if they came to Channel 13. Mr. Pritchard was told that he would be terminated if he spoke to any Department investigators. On July 13, 1996, at about 8:30 p.m. and while on duty at Channel 13, Mr. Scott locked his master key to the facility in an office he had just checked. Immediately thereafter Mr. Scott attempted to call Respondent. When Mr. Scott could not reach Respondent directly, he left several messages with Respondent's answering service. Respondent never turned the calls. When Mr. Scott left at midnight, he still had not heard from Respondent. The next day when Mr. Scott spoke with Respondent, about the "key" incident that has occurred on July 13, 1996. Respondent then directed Mr. Scott to indicate on the log that Respondent had returned Mr. Scott's call on July 13, 1998, shortly after 8:30 p.m., the time Mr. Scott had initially placed the call to Respondent. Mr. Scott told Respondent that he would not falsify the log. Later Mr. Scott observed that Mr. Hargraves had added an addendum to the daily log that falsely indicated that Respondent had responded to Mr. Scott's call the previous night.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts IV through XXIV and Counts XXVI through XXVIII; (2) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XXV; and (3) revoking Respondent's Class "B" license, Class "G" license, and Class "MB" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele L. Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher Hargraves 12515 Mondragon Tampa, Florida 33625 Laura Vaughn, Esquire 401 East Jackson Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
