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 in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 4, 1994, the Petitioner filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1994, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him of its intention to deny his application. The sole stated ground for denial was described as "[f]ailure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j). You committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of yourself or another." The denial letter also made specific reference to the date of February 21, 1993, and specifically referred to criminal charges allegedly brought against the Petitioner on that date for battery and aggravated battery. With regard to the Respondent's basis for denial, the proof demonstrates that during the early afternoon of February 21, 1993, the Petitioner became involved in an argument with Jessica Favata, an adult female with whom he was acquainted. The intensity of the argument escalated and at one point the Petitioner physically pushed Ms. Favata. At that point a male friend of Ms. Favata, one Bradley Watson, injected himself into the argument. As the intensity of the argument between the Petitioner and Mr. Watson continued to increase, the Petitioner retrieved an aluminum baseball bat from his motor vehicle and began swinging the bat in the general direction of Mr. Watson. During the course of one of the swings of the bat, the Petitioner struck Ms. Favata on the hand with the bat. As a result of being struck by the bat, Ms. Favata's hand was visibly injured. During the course of the events described in the preceding paragraph neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were armed with any type of weapon. Similarly, neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the Petitioner.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, 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 31st day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License Number D94-17752, which was issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective October 17, 1996, to October 17, 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Navarro Security. On February 11 and 12, 1997, Respondent was on duty at a security post, during the evening hours, at William Lehman car dealership located in Broward County, Florida.1 That car dealership was a client of Navarro Security. Respondent's duties at this security post included patrolling the premises in a motorized golf cart. Respondent was not permitted to sleep while on duty. On February 11, 1997, Respondent was found by Corey Targia, a supervisor (captain) employed by Navarro Security, to be asleep in his own vehicle at approximately 3:34 a.m. Respondent was supposed to be on duty at that time. Respondent did not wake up until Mr. Targia knocked on the window of the vehicle. On February 12, 1997, Respondent was again found by Mr. Targia to be asleep while he was on duty. On this occasion, Mr. Targia found Respondent at approximately 3:52 a.m. sleeping in a car owned by the dealership. A sign advertising the sale of the car was positioned in a manner to obscure Respondent's presence in the vehicle. Mr. Targia called by radio Mike Crutcher, another supervisor (lieutenant) employed by Navarro Security, and asked Mr. Crutcher come to the site with a camera. Mr. Crutcher arrived at the site and observed Respondent sleeping. Respondent awakened before Mr. Crutcher could photograph him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Licensed be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Firearm License, committed the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of Class "D" Security Officer License D92-01223 and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License G96-01346. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an armed security guard for Wells Fargo Security in Palm Beach County, Florida. His assigned post was at the Community Savings Bank (the Bank) in Riviera Beach, Florida. There was typically only one guard assigned to that post. The Bank is located in a high crime area of Riviera Beach. Respondent was the only guard assigned to the Bank on June 5, 1996. Respondent was on duty at the Bank from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., five days a week. He was to provide security for all five floors of the main bank building, an adjacent single story building that contained supplies, and the parking areas. His duties included escorting Bank personnel and customers between the parking areas and the Bank, and he was required to carry a radio so that Bank personnel could contact him when someone needed an escort. The radio he carried had a radius of 1.5 miles. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Michael Ross was employed by Wells Fargo and had direct supervisory authority over the Respondent. Mr. Ross instructed Respondent that he could leave the Bank premises only to pick up a sandwich. He was instructed to take his breaks and eat his lunch on Bank premises. On June 5, 1996, Respondent was on duty at the Bank. At approximately 11:00 a.m. that day, Mr. Ross spoke with Sheila Owens, the bank's operation manager, in an effort to locate the Respondent. Mr. Ross wanted to discuss with the Respondent certain changes in the work schedule. Ms. Owens advised Mr. Ross that she would attempt to locate Respondent and that she would call him back. A few minutes later, Ms. Owens called Mr. Ross and told him that she could not locate Respondent. Mr. Ross became concerned that the post was unattended. Because the Bank is in a high crime area, he was also concerned that the Respondent may have become the victim of an act of violence. Mr. Ross drove to the Bank, arriving at approximately 12:30 p.m. on June 5, 1996. He and Ms. Owens searched the entire Bank premises. Mr. Ross attempted to contact Respondent by radio and by Respondent's personal beeper number. The page Mr. Ross left for Respondent was not returned. Mr. Ross tried to locate the Respondent for approximately two hours. He called the Riviera Police Department because he feared for Respondent's safety. Two Riviera Police Department cars arrived at the scene at approximately 2:30 p.m. on June 5, 1996. About the time the police arrived, Mr. Ross saw Respondent walking through the Bank's parking lot. Respondent told Mr. Ross that he had been at a beeper store that was approximately 200 yards from the Bank. That explanation is not credible because Respondent could have been contacted by radio if he had been within a mile and a half of the Bank. Respondent was absent from his post without credible explanation for at least two hours on June 5, 1996. Wells Fargo thereafter lost the security contract it had with the Bank.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s Class “D” Security License be revoked. It is further recommended that no action be taken against Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. James B. Brown 1031 West 1st Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
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
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.
Findings Of Fact As Needed Temps, Inc., Respondent, provides temporary employees to various businesses. Respondent is not licensed under Chapter 493. Respondent Mary E. Carter is president of Respondent. She is also the director of operations for SOS Security, Inc., whose principal place of business is at the same location as that of Respondent. SOS Security, Inc. holds a Class "B" license. In August, 1987, David Christy, who was a drywall laborer, was working temporary jobs that Respondent had found for him. On August 8 or 9, 1988, Respondent assigned him to SOS Security, Inc., which placed Mr. Christy as a security guard at a local bicycle racetrack. While working as a security guard, Mr. Christy wore the guard uniform of SOS Security, Inc. Mr. Christy was not a licensed security guard. SOS Security, Inc., which billed its customer for the security service, paid Respondent for Mr. Christy's services, and Respondent paid Mr. Christy. At least one other individual entered into a similar arrangement with Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. Willy Dorsey, whose security guard license had expired in 1986, was paid by Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. at different times for security work that he performed during an unspecified year. These incidents were not isolated. Respondent invoiced SOS Security, Inc. a total of over $13,000 in three invoices from March 20, 1987, through May 8, 1987, for "providing guard service."
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1402 1-2. Rejected as not finding of fact. 3-10. Rejected as recitation of evidence and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mary E. Carter President As Needed Temps, Inc. 6239 Edgewater Drive Suite N-5 Orlando, Florida 32810 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was convicted of unarmed robbery before the courts of the State of Massachusetts in 1960. The Petitioner has applied for a pardon so that his civil rights can be restored, and it is probable that his civil rights will be restored. Apparently the process for accomplishing a restoration of civil rights is time consuming in the State of Massachusetts. The Petitioner failed to reflect on his application that he was arrested for robbery in 1962. He was not convicted of that crime. It does not appear that the Petitioner deliberately falsified his application.
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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Department of State, Division of Licensing's (Department's) March 26, 1992, letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is 56 years of age. He has had numerous brushes with the law, many of them alcohol-related, dating back to 1956, but he has never been convicted of a felony. In June of 1956, Petitioner attempted to purchase a beer in Sacramento, California. He was 19 years old at the time and, although in the military, under the legal drinking age. Petitioner was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor violation of California's alcoholic beverage control law. He received a ten-day suspended sentence. In November of 1956, when Petitioner was stationed on a military base in Amarillo, Texas, he and friend, without authorization, went into a room on the base where weapons were stored. They took possession of a .38 calibre firearm and started "playing with it." Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offenses of unlawful entry and wrongful appropriation. He received a bad conduct discharge, which was suspended. After attending a rehabilitation training program, he returned to active military service. In May of 1962, Petitioner was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. He was subsequently convicted of the offense. His license was suspended for ten days and he was ordered to pay $25 in court costs. In the early part of 1964, Petitioner, along with several others, charged $700 worth of merchandise in a department store in Indianapolis, Indiana using credit card slips they had forged. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the felony offense of uttering a forged instrument. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation. In October of 1968, while in Anderson Indiana, Petitioner was arrested and charged with theft by deception for having written checks in amounts that exceeded the balance of his checking account. The checks were actually written by Petitioner's estranged wife without his knowledge. The charge against Petitioner was dropped after restitution was made. In January of 1969, Petitioner was again arrested in Anderson, Indiana and charged with theft by deception for having written bad checks. These checks were written by Petitioner, but he did not realize at the time he wrote them that, because of his wife's check writing, he had insufficient funds in his account. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for a year. In February of 1970, Petitioner stayed in a Naples, Florida hotel for approximately three or four days. When he checked out, he did not have enough money to pay his bill. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offense of defrauding an innkeeper. Less than a week later, Petitioner made restitution and the charge against him was dropped. The following month, while in Miami Beach, Florida, Petitioner was again unable to pay a hotel bill and, as a result, arrested and charged with defrauding an innkeeper. This charge was also dropped after Petitioner made restitution. In May of 1970, Petitioner was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a Naples, Florida restaurant with intent to commit grand larceny. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In January of 1971, Petitioner was driving a motor vehicle in Fort Myers, Florida that had an expired inspection sticker affixed to it. He was stopped by the police and a firearm belonging to a passenger was discovered in the vehicle. Petitioner was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and driving a vehicle with an expired inspection sticker. The former charge was dropped. With respect to the latter charge, Petitioner was fined $30 or $35. In October of 1971, Petitioner was arrested in Naples, Florida and charged with writing a worthless check. The check was in the amount of $20 or $25. At the time he wrote the check, Petitioner was unaware that he did not have enough money in his account to cover the check. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charge was dropped. In February of 1976, in Lauderhill, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and again charged with writing a worthless check. The amount of this check was less than $50. Petitioner pled guilty to this misdemeanor offense and was fined $10. In addition to paying the fine, Petitioner made restitution. That same month, Petitioner was arrested in Sunrise, Florida and charged with battery on his wife. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In July of 1976, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, assault and battery and petty larceny. All of these charges were unfounded; however, as a matter of convenience and pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pled no contest to the assault and battery charge. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld. Petitioner received a 90-day suspended sentence and a $352 fine, which was also suspended. The remaining charges against Petitioner were dropped. In December of 1977, Petitioner was again arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On this occasion, he was charged with two counts of writing worthless checks under $50. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charges were dropped. In February of 1980, in Jasper, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, speeding, driving without a valid drivers license and refusing to sign a summons. The latter charge was dropped. Petitioner pled guilty to the remaining charges and was adjudicated guilty on these charges by the trial court. For speeding and driving without a valid drivers license, he was fined. For driving while intoxicated, he was also fined and, in addition, his drivers license was suspended and he was ordered to attend DWI school. In May of 1985, in West Palm Beach, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on a Dade County, Florida warrant that had been issued in 1980, when he had been charged with two felony counts of writing worthless checks. The checks had actually been written by Petitioner's daughter. After his arrest, Petitioner made restitution and the charges against him were dropped. In November of 1985, Petitioner was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with driving while intoxicated. He pled guilty to this misdemeanor charge. The trial court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and suspended his license for six months and ordered him to attend DWI school. Petitioner has not been in trouble with the law since. He is now a law-abiding citizen, who is better able to control is intake of alcohol. In filling out Section 5 of his application for licensure, which addressed the subject of criminal history, Petitioner did not intentionally make any misrepresentations or omit any required information. It was his understanding that he was required to disclose information relating only to felony convictions in this section of the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner should not be denied licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer on the grounds cited in the Department's March 26, 1992, denial letter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August, 1992. 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 18th day of August, 1992.
