The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On June 11, 1991, Respondent filed an employment application with Florida Patrol and Security Guard Service, Inc., d/b/a Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent submitted to Maria Vilma Gonzalez, the secretary for Sunstate Security Patrol, photocopies of two documents. Respondent represented that one photocopy was of his Class D Security Officer License and that the other was a photocopy of his Class G Statewide Firearms Permit. The photocopy of the Class D license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of April 1, 1992. The photocopy of the Class G license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of March 4, 1992. Respondent began working for Sunstate Security Patrol as an armed guard on June 11, 1991, and continued that work for approximately six weeks. He left that employ to take employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent submitted the same documents to Ventura Security Services to show his licensure that he had submitted to Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent did not hold a valid Class D license or a Class G license on June 11, 1991, when he applied for employment with Sunstate Security Patrol, at any other time while he was employed by Sunstate Security Patrol, or when he applied for employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent had been issued a Class D license that expired March 4, 1988. Respondent had been issued a Class G license that expired April 1, 1988. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class D license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class G license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent held a "D" license and a "G" license. The "D" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of July 31, 1993. The "G" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of October 1, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which revokes all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent whose Social Security Number is 356-48-9981 was certified as a law enforcement office by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 18, 1985 and was issued certificate number 12- 85-222-02. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. On or about April 23, 1987 Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of grand theft in the second degree, a violation Section 812.014, Florida Statutes and dealing in stolen property, a violation of Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was adjudged guilty of these offenses by the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida on April 23, 1987.
Recommendation Having considered the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order revoking the law enforcement officer certification (No. 12-85-222-02) of Respondent, Carey A. Reddick. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 15th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carey A. Reddick 15424 Loomis Harvey, IL 60426 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This is an examination challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner contends that he should be given additional credit for his answers to two challenged questions from Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, Law Enforcement Officer Basic Recruit Training Examination.
Findings Of Fact Background matters The Respondent agencies are agencies of the State of Florida and are charged by statute with responsibility for the testing and certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Petitioner seeks to become a Florida certified law enforcement officer. To that end, on April 25, 1995, he sat for Section 5 of the certification examination. In order to receive a passing grade on Section 5 of the examination, the Petitioner must answer 80 percent of the questions correctly. The Petitioner was originally given a grade of 75 percent on the April 25, 1995, examination. The examination was then manually graded and the Petitioner was awarded a raw score of 46 points which equates to a percentage score of 77 percent correct. At the commencement of the hearing the Respondents stipulated that the Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to question 38. That stipulation had the effect of increasing the Petitioner's raw score to 47 and increasing his percentage of correct answers to 78.3 percent. The Petitioner needs a raw score of at least 48 in order to have answered 80 percent of the questions correctly. Multiple choice questions on a certification examination should have only one correct answer choice. If more than one of the answer choices is arguably valid it is the policy of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission to give candidates the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for an arguably correct answer other than the "keyed" correct answer. Question Number 30 Question number 30 on Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, examination relates to Law Enforcement Objective CJD-704(A1), the topic of which is "Use of Force Matrix/Levels of Resistance Matrix." Question number 30 is a multiple choice question, the answer to which involves identification of the appropriate initial officer response level to a situation described in the question. 5/ The situation described in question number 30 involves conduct by the subjects described in the question that could be interpreted as at least level 5 resistance on the Level of Resistance Matrix. When faced with that level of resistance, the Use of Force Matrix authorizes a broad range of officer responses from as little as "arrival" or "officer presence" to as much as "incapacitation," with nine or ten authorized intermediate responselevels in between. Judging from the "keyed" correct answer, question number 30 was apparently intended to test the candidates' knowledge of the first response level itemized on the Use of Force/Levels of Resistance Matrix. However, the question is worded in such a way that it appears to be asking what the candidate would do first if he or she responded to the situation described in the question. In view of the definitions in Law Enforcement Objective CJD-704(A1) of the terms "Presence" and "Dialogue" under the caption "OFFICER RESPONSE LEVELS," the answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. 6/ Question number 30 is also ambiguous because of all of the potential variables that might be present in a situation such as that described in the question, which variables could change the nature of the most appropriate response. By reason of this ambiguity in the subject question, the answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. Question Number 54 Question number 54 on Section 5 of the April 25, 1995, examination relates to Law Enforcement Objective CJD-723(F1), the topic of which is "Vehicle Pullovers." Question number 54 is a multiple choice question, the answer to which involves identification of the first thing an officer should do in the situation described in the question. 7/ Question number 54 is ambiguous and misleading when the question is considered in light of the language of the relevant portions of Law Enforcement Objective CJD-723(F1), which read as follows: OBJECTIVES: The student will: * * * Describe the proper positioning of the patrol vehicle, to include: approximately 15 feet behind the vehicle approximately 3 feet to the left turn the radio up leave flashing lights on during the entire stop. Recall that an officer should constantly observe the vehicle and occupants. Identify the procedures to be followed while approaching the vehicle on foot, to include: be aware of traffic conditions observe the driver and passengers by looking in the side or rear windows check the trunk to be sure it is closed. approach slowly and carefully from the left front door of the patrol vehicle to just behind the left front door of the violator's vehicle when only the front seat is occupied minimize exposure by standing just to the rear of the violator's vehicle, if rear seat occupied visually check persons and passenger's compart- ment for weapons carry flashlight, if needed, leaving strong hand free for possible weapon use Recall that it is important to have the driver turn off the engine [immediately] after stopping. Identify steps to follow during the initial violator contact, to include: greet the offender with courtesy obtain the driver's license and registration [immediately] to gain control briefly state reasons for stop do not accept a purse or wallet with a license inside; ask the offender to remove it do not argue with the offender; thoroughly explain the reason for the stop. [Emphasis added.] The language from CJD-723(F1) quoted above does not purport to prioritize the actions it describes, nor does it clearly state which of the many actions described in that language should be taken first. Several of the actions described above could be reasonably identified as the first action a police officer should take under the circumstances described in question number The answer chosen by the Petitioner is as good an answer, if not a better answer, than the "keyed" answer. 8/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 30 and 54 and adjusting his examination score accordingly. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 24th day of January 1996.
Findings Of Fact The facts as set forth in the Stipulation above are incorporated within the Findings of Fact in this hearing. The applicant is now employed by Central Security Patrol. His supervisor in his employment as an unarmed guard has known Croft for 15 months. His supervisor's primary association and knowledge of Croft is job-related. Croft's supervisor considers Croft dependable, a good worker, and well liked by those who come in contact with him. Croft has had no problems with absenteeism from his job. Croft's further advancement within the company with which he is now employed is dependent upon acquisition of a Class G, armed guard license. Croft's reputation in the community was testified to by two of his neighbors who had known Croft for three to four years. Croft's reputation in the neighborhood is good. The neighbors, who observed Croft daily, testified to Croft's habits. Croft does not drink and lives quietly with his wife of four years. Croft works in his yard and at his job. Croft testified in his own behalf. Croft had a series of arrests and convictions arising out of his heavy drinking between 1963 and 1969. Croft was then arrested for driving under the influence and a moving traffic violation in May of 1975. In October of 1975, he was arrested for homicide, assault to commit murder, and discharge of a firearm. These charges were dropped. Croft stated that these charges were an outgrowth of his heavy drinking. Croft was married approximately four years ago and has not drunk alcoholic beverages for the past two years. Although Croft does not admit to alcoholism, he recognizes that his drinking was the cause of his problems and has ceased drinking. Concerning the gap in his arrest record between 1969 and 1975, Croft stated that he had drunk heavily during that period but had not been arrested. Croft's supervisor testified concerning the company's policy concerning issuance and control of firearms. The company which employs Croft owns and controls all employee weapons to the extent that the company purchases any private weapon owned by an employee which the employee wishes to use on the job. Only weapons originally owned by an employee may be retained in the employee's possession and removed off a security post. All other weapons owned by the company must be retained on a security post and transferred from one guard shift to the next.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant, James Robert Croft, be issued a Class G, armed guard license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James R. Croft 3545 Marlboro Avenue Jacksonville, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 15, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1991, Respondent performed the services of a security guard at a Best Western Motel in Orange County, Florida, As such he was employed by the motel. While performing the services above noted Respondent carried a 9mm Berretta automatic pistol in a holster external to his clothes. While performing the above-noted services Respondent's firearm was unloaded and he had hollow point 9mm shells in his pocket. While performing the above-noted services Respondent held neither a Class D nor Class G license. Respondent was performing the services of security guard while substituting for a relative who was ill. Respondent was working solely for the motel and was not associated with any security guard agency. The motel manager had requested that Respondent carry a unloaded firearm because several crimes had been committed in the vicinity of the motel. Respondent believed that as an employee of the motel, as contrasted with being employed by a security guard agency, Respondent did not need a security guard license. Further, Respondent believed he had a Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to overtly carry the firearm in the holster outside his clothing. At the time of this hearing Respondent was unemployed.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's application for a Class "D" security officer's license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On November 8, 1990, the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, received Petitioner, Marco A. Sanchez' application for a Class "D" security officer's license. The application was signed by Petitioner on October 24, 1990. In Section five of Petitioner's application, Petitioner indicated he had never been convicted of a crime regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or imposition of sentence was suspended. By amended denial letter dated June 11, 1991, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application for licensure would be denied for alleged violation of Section 493.6118(1)(a), to wit, fraud or willful misrepresentation in applying for a license; and Section 493.6118(3), lack of good moral character. On March 1, 1990, in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 89- 20164, Petitioner pled guilty and had adjudication of guilt withheld on the charge of petit theft. The initial charge was strong arm robbery but was reduced at trial. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of six months, however, he successfully performed his community service within two (2) weeks of sentencing and the probationary period was suspended following his completion of the community service.. The guilty plea resulted from an incident in which Petitioner attempted to steal a dress shirt from a local department store. Petitioner became angry when he was unsuccessful in his effort to exchange a shirt that he received as a gift. Petitioner was ultimately able to have the shirt exchanged at a different department store of the same chain. Following the exchange, Petitioner attempted to steal another shirt. Petitioner was observed by the store's security officers who followed him and apprehended him as he left the store. Petitioner and the officers engaged in a scuffle when they detained him. Based on Petitioner's confrontation with the store clerk at the first store, he was motivated to attempt to take the shirt from the second store. On December 9, 1989, Petitioner was originally charged with strong arm robbery on the basis that one of the security officers was injured on the lip. At hearing, Petitioner credibly testified that the security officer in question was not involved in his apprehension in December 1989. Petitioner is remorseful for attempting to steal the shirt from the department store in December 1989. During November 1988, in Miami, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with the possession of cocaine and marijuana. The charges were nolle prossed. Petitioner credibly testified that the drugs in question belonged to a female companion in his car at the time of his arrest and he was unaware that she had any contraband on her person. Petitioner completed his application for a Class "D" security officer and was aware of his requirement to truthfully respond to the inquiry in Section Five of the application. Petitioner failed to credibly explain his omission of the March 1, 1990 disposition of the charges filed against him in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 89-20164.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" security officer. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day of August, 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Ronald W. Cone. Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License No. D89-03534 which expired on February 21, 1993. Subsequently, Respondent applied for renewal of the Class "D" Security Officer License in August, 1993. The renewal was granted by Petitioner. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, Respondent has, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, held a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. From February 21, 1993, to April 12, 1993, Respondent performed his duties as an armed security officer at the Independent Life Insurance Building in Jacksonville, Florida. The building was open to the public at the time. On April 9, 1993, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Respondent arrived for work at his guard station in the center of the 80 foot vaulted ceiling lobby to the building. The acoustics of the lobby are such that a dime can be heard hitting the floor all the way across the area on a quiet day when there are few people in the facility, as was the case on April 9, 1993, at about 4:00 p.m. when Respondent decided to delve into his brown bag lunch. Leaving his subordinate, an unarmed security guard named William C. Piersky, on duty at the guard station, Respondent went to a restaurant area located in the lobby of the building approximately 125 feet from the guard station to eat his late lunch. The restaurant, operated by Morrison's Cafeteria, Inc., was closed at the time. The area was separated from the rest of the lobby by small partitions that stood three to four feet tall. Piersky was unable to see Respondent. A short time later, Piersky heard a loud report which he presumed was the discharge of a firearm. Although Piersky concluded the discharge he heard came from a firearm, his testimony is not credited on this point in view of his admitted unfamiliarity with bullets containing "birdshot", his admitted lack of involvement with firearms in previous security employment, and his present employment in the position previously held by Respondent. Respondent's testimony at final hearing was candid, worthy of belief and establishes that what Piersky really heard was not a firearm discharge. Rather, the loud report resulted from Respondent's action of blowing up and popping his paper lunch bag in an area with extreme acoustical sensitivity. Respondent admits that he was having fun at Piersky's expense and that when he returned to the guard station in the center of the lobby he remarked "can't believe I missed that bird." The reference to a bird was the sparrow that had found its way into the building. The bird had eluded capture by building maintenance personnel. Respondent's candid testimony establishes that he did not discharge his service revolver at the bird and that he did not load the weapon with a form of nonstandard ammunition known as birdshot on the day in question. In furtherance of his claim that a firearm had discharged, Piersky did an incident report on the matter. Three days later Respondent was fired. Piersky, previously an unarmed contract guard, now works as an armed security guard supervisor directly for Independent Life Insurance Company, as did Respondent prior to his termination. During the period of February 14, 1993 through April 12, 1993, Respondent performed duties as a security officer and armed security officer while his Class "D" license was expired. Upon receipt of a renewal notice and during his employment with Independent Life, Respondent's practice was to give that notice to the building manager's secretary to handle administratively. This had been a normal practice for licensed security guards during Respondent's employment with Independent Life. He followed this practice in the present instance and thought at the time that his license was renewed. Following his termination of employment and discovery of his license expiration, Respondent proceeded to obtain license renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of allegations contained in Counts III, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order find Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine of $100 for each violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-4981 The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-5. Accepted, though not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Rejected, relevance. Adopted, though not verbatim. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings In Respondent's posthearing submission, he basically pleads guilty to the allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and not guilty to the remaining counts. Accordingly, further comment is not required. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Attorney at Law Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald W. Cone Post Office Box 447 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 323999-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' stipulations, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. He has held the former license since May of 1990 and the latter license since September of that year. He has never before been disciplined by the Department. From October of 1991, until June 23, 1993, Respondent was employed by Certified Security Services, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as "Certified"), a business which provides armed and unarmed security services. Among Certified's clients during the period of Respondent's employment was Winn-Dixie Store No. 343 (hereinafter referred to as "Store 343"), located at 14900 Northwest 6th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Respondent was assigned by Certified to work as a uniformed security guard at Store 343. He regularly drove a cashier at the store named Maria home from work in his car. On the afternoon of June 23, 1993, at around 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., Respondent was standing in the store parking lot conversing with a patron of the store, Sylvia Malgarejo, when he was approached by Maria, who was carrying a package containing a box of Pampers and a bottle of cooking oil. Respondent had no reason to, nor did he, believe that Maria had misappropriated these items from the store. Maria asked Respondent to put the package in his car. Respondent complied with Maria's request. He then continued his conversation with Malgarejo. The conversation did not last long. Olga Campos-Campbell, the store's general merchandise manager, had reported to the store manager that Respondent had shoplifted merchandise from the store. Campos-Campbell and Respondent had an ongoing feud concerning the scope of Respondent's job responsibilities. Campos-Campbell frequently asked Respondent to do things that he believed were outside the scope of his duties as a security guard, and an argument between the two invariably ensued. Based upon Campos-Campbell's erroneous report, the store manager had Respondent detained. Kent Jurney, who assisted the owner of Certified, his wife, in running the business, was contacted and advised of the situation. Jurney responded by going to the store with Certified's general manager, Bill Banco, and confronting Respondent. Respondent's native language is Spanish. Jurney, on the other hand, does not speak or understand Spanish. He communicates in English. Respondent's ability to communicate in English, however, is limited. Respondent tried to explain to Jurney in English how he had come into possession of the Pampers and cooking oil, but Jurney misunderstood him and mistakenly thought that Respondent was admitting that he had stolen the items from the store. Accordingly, he advised Respondent that Respondent's employment with Certified was being terminated effective immediately. The police were also contacted. The police officer who responded to the scene cited Respondent for shoplifting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint and dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-6941 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of facts" proposed by Respondent in his post-hearing submittal: 1. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 2-5. Rejected as findings of fact because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony elicited at hearing than findings of fact based upon such testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 C. Ernest Rennella, Esquire 2524 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be issued a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. Upon certification of his employer that his duties require him to be armed, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency issue the Petitioner a Class "G" Armed Guard License. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the agency adopt a rule restricting all guard agencies from utilizing armed guards where the nature of their assigned duties does not warrant the use of a firearm to carry out their assignment. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W.J. Galdwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 John F. Cuddy, Esquire 333 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact The proceeding came on for hearing on the Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license. The Respondent, Department of State/Division of Licensing, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of security guards. The Respondent, on February 15, 1982, served notice on the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for license, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the cause was set for hearing as delineated in the notice. Upon timely convening the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1982, the Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned and the Respondent and the Respondent's witness remained in the hearing room for approximately one hour in hopes that the Petitioner might appear. The Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned entered on the record the fact of the Petitioner's default and the fact that all concerned remained in the hearing room awaiting the Petitioner's arrival for approximately one hour. Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Karl Harry Wilson be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Karl Harry Wilson Aquarius Restaurant Aquarius Condominium Route A1A 2751 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stephan Nall, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
