The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; (2) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff rule relating to effectiveness in assigned duties; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a detention deputy and has been so employed for more than 11 years. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Detention Center (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Respondent is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On April 26, 1999, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, Special Operations Division, and was a corporal supervising the booking area. In connection with that assignment, Respondent's job responsibilities included booking inmates into the Jail. One part of the booking process required that detention deputies obtain certain information from individuals taken into custody in order to complete the necessary paperwork. While the information was being obtained, inmates are instructed to stand behind a blue line on the floor. As part of the booking process, detention deputies inventory the property in the possession of an inmate and make a written record of that property and "pat down" the inmate. Following these procedures, the inmate is seen by a nurse. However, if the nurse is unavailable, the inmate is told to wait in Pre-booking Cell 4 (Cell 4). Detention Deputy Robert McQuire was also assigned to work the third shift in the booking area of the Special Operations Division on April 26, 1999. On April 26, 1999, during the third shift, Jay McMillen (McMillen) was booked into custody at the Jail on the charge of driving without a valid driver’s license. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was taken to the booking area, instructed to stand behind the blue line on the floor near the counter in the booking area, and asked for information required to complete the inmate property form. Both Respondent and McGuire participated in booking McMillen but McGuire asked the inmate most of the questions. During the booking process, McMillen cooperated with Respondent and McGuire and provided the information required to complete the booking form. Moreover, McMillen complied with orders given to him by the detention deputies. Although McMillen occasionally wandered a few feet away from the booking counter, he would immediately return to the area behind the blue line when so instructed. While being booked, McMillen never threatened either Respondent or McGuire. Furthermore, McMillen never physically resisted the actions of the detention deputies or exhibited physical violence. During the course of the booking process, Respondent undertook a routine pat down search of McMillen. As a part of that process, McMillen again complied with Respondent’s instructions to assume the appropriate position. While engaging in the pat down, some slight movement of McMillen’s leg occurred. However, at the time of this movement by McMillen, Respondent took no action to restrain McMillen. After the pat down was completed, McMillen was then told to sit on the bench in the booking area and to remove his shoes for inspection. McMillen immediately complied with this instruction. After Respondent completed the search of the shoes, he then ordered McMillen to have a seat in Cell 4. When Respondent ordered McMillen to Cell 4 to await nurse screening, McMillen complied with that order. While McMillen was walking toward Cell 4, McMillen made a single verbal statement to Respondent. The statement by McMillen was inappropriate and unnecessary. In the statement, McMillen referred to Respondent as "bitch." In response to McMillen's statement, Respondent turned from his original direction of returning to the booking counter and followed McMillen into Cell 4. It was Respondent’s intent at that time to remove McMillen from Cell 4 and to transport him to C Wing, an area used for inmates who were agitated or upset and needed a "cooling down" period. Respondent’s decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4 to the C Wing was based solely upon the tone of McMillen’s voice and was not the result of any aggressive physical act taken by McMillen or a verbal threat made by McMillen. Respondent followed McMillen into Cell 4 without the benefit of assistance from another detention deputy. In fact, prior to acting upon his decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4, Respondent did not advise McGuire or any other detention deputy of his intent or ask for assistance. Although Respondent did not advise any detention deputy that he was going into Cell 4, McGuire apparently observed Respondent proceeding toward Cell 4, and within approximately nine seconds, followed Respondent into the cell. At the time Respondent entered Cell 4 there was another inmate in the cell. Once in Cell 4, McMillen complied with Respondent’s instruction to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. However, while Respondent was handcuffing McMillen, McMillen exhibited an aggressive move toward him. As a result of McMillen's aggressive move, Respondent exercised force in restraining McMillen, engaging in an arm hold and forcing McMillen to the ground. Once on the ground, McMillen did not resist further and cooperated in the efforts of Respondent and McGuire to return him to his feet. During the process of Respondent's utilizing this force, McMillen suffered a cut over his right eye that required medical attention. McGuire then assisted Respondent in the handcuffing and transporting of McMillen. McMillen was then transported to C Wing where he was seen by a nurse, his restraints were removed, and he was left in a cell. McMillen did not resist further at that time and complied with the instructions of Respondent. Following the incident described in paragraph 16, Respondent and McGuire reported the incident as a use of force. Their incident reports were reviewed by Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Richard Leach, who approved the use of force and completed his own report. Prior to completing his report, Sergeant Leach attempted to speak with McMillen, but McMillen refused to discuss the matter with him. Sergeant Leach discussed the incident with Respondent and McGuire, but did not review the videotapes of the pre-booking area for the time period during which the incident occurred. It was later that Sergeant Leach was advised there was a problem with regard to the use of force. After reports were completed and submitted, the videotapes made in the pre-booking area of the incident were reviewed by Lieutenant Alan Harmer, pursuant to the procedures utilized at the Jail. Lieutenant Harmer also reviewed the incident reports prepared by Respondent and McGuire and the use- of-force report prepared by Sergeant Leach. Upon reviewing the tapes, Lieutenant Harmer determined that the events leading up to the use of force and the use of force itself violated Sheriff’s Office rules. As a result of Lieutenant Harmer's preliminary determination, an internal investigation was conducted by the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the referral by Lieutenant Harmer. Sworn statements were taken by investigators, including statements of Respondent, McGuire, and the inmate in Cell 4 at the time of the altercation. In his sworn statement, Respondent alleged that McMillen was verbally abusive during the course of the booking process and that he further was uncooperative and had initiated an act of possible physical resistance by moving his leg in a manner possibly designed to strike Respondent. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Administrative Review Board (Board) without conclusion or recommendation. Sergeant Leach was among the officers sitting on the Board. Although Sergeant Leach had initially approved the use of force when he reviewed the reports of Respondent and McGuire, he voted to discipline Respondent based upon his observations from the videotapes of the incident. The Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Respondent the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 067, relating to a member’s effectiveness in their assigned duties. On April 26, 1999, you unnecessarily caused a use of force by entering a cell and confronting an inmate. Further, you exposed yourself to undue risk by entering the cell without appropriate back-up. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 15 disciplinary points. As a result, Respondent was assessed 15 disciplinary points. Sheriff’s Office General Order 10-2 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point assessment of 15 points to be a minimum discipline of a written reprimand and a maximum discipline of a three-day suspension. In the instant case, Respondent was assessed the maximum discipline, a three-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Respondent in following McMillen into Cell 4 and then engaging in a physical altercation with McMillen based solely upon a single comment by McMillen, regardless of the extent to which the comment constituted a vulgar insult directed toward Respondent, did not constitute a good correctional practice. Moreover, such conduct is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of correctional officers in a volatile situation is to calm the situation and to maintain control, not to act to aggravate or to escalate the dispute or to allow the inmate to control the situation via verbal comments. Proper correctional practice would have been to allow McMillen to remain in Cell 4 for sufficient time to cool off and calm down before initiating further contact with him. Similarly, the actions of Respondent in following McMillen into the cell by himself rather than obtaining assistance prior to entering the cell, are also contrary to good correctional practice. Again, this conduct by Respondent served only to potentially escalate and aggravate the confrontation, rather than to calm the situation. Moreover, it is also good correctional practice to have two detention deputies transport an inmate. This is particularly so considering the presence of another inmate in Cell 4 at the time Respondent entered the cell. There was no need for Respondent to enter the cell with McMillen or to initiate physical contact with McMillen, and his actions are contrary to Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure File Index No. DCB 9.29 that requires that detention deputies refrain from one-on-one confrontations with inmates that may lead to physical confrontations. The actions of Respondent created a situation that led to a use of force and injury to McMillen that could have been avoided had Respondent effectively performed his duties as a detention deputy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document and upholding Respondent’s suspension for three days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2000, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Henry A. Faircloth holds certificates as a correctional officer, No. 05-83-599-01, and as a law enforcement officer, No. 16-89-222-03, both issued by petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission; and has held them at all pertinent times. In the spring of 1988, he worked for the Florida Department of Corrections at Holmes Correctional Institution, where he held the rank of major. On May 25, 1988, he was in a meeting about ongoing construction at the prison, when Glenda Parmer told him he was needed in his office, elsewhere in the same building. She had seen James T. Watson and Charles W. Pumphrey, correctional officers who worked as sergeants at Holmes Correctional Institution, escorting Samuel Collier, an unruly and, as it turned out, intoxicated inmate toward the security complex. After Ms. Parmer, a correctional officer who worked as an administrative lieutenant, recounted events to Major Faircloth and told him "that we had some problems," (T.224) she accompanied him on the walk back toward his office. Before they reached the hall onto which Major Faircloth's office opened, they encountered the obstreperous inmate, his hands in handcuffs behind him, (T.234) a sergeant on either side. Although she came within three or four feet of the inmate, Ms. Parmer did not observe any injuries. T.220. The mail room officer, who was also within three or four feet of the inmate about this time, saw no injuries on the inmate's face, either. T.233-4. Neither did Sergeant Pumphrey, at this point. T.541. Major Faircloth, both sergeants and the inmate started down the hall and Ms. Parmer "stepped out of the way so they could go down the hallway." T.220. As he walked by them, Major Faircloth turned to Sergeants Michael Sheppard and William Paul and Inspector William T. Nobles, who were in a group talking, and told them "to wait right there, [and not to] let any inmates come down" (T.66) the hall toward Major Faircloth's office. After he had given this order, Respondent Faircloth entered his office and closed the door. T.43. Messrs. Collier, Watson and Pumphrey had preceded him through the door into the office. From outside the office, the inmate was heard interrupting Major Faircloth, cursing loudly "and raising sand." Id. During the three or four minutes that elapsed before Major Faircloth came back out of his office, four to six noises that "sounded like licks being passed," (T.44) were audible through the closed door at intervals of 30 seconds to a minute. "It sounded like flesh meeting flesh." T.150; T.178. The inmate yelled, "[D]on't hit me anymore." T.235. Major Faircloth emerged from his office without the inmate or Sergeants Pumphrey and Watson, reentering the hall where Sergeants Sheppard and Paul and Inspector Nobles still stood. Sergeant Sheppard noticed spatters of blood on Major Faircloth's shirt, although Major Faircloth was not bleeding, as far as he could see. T.46. Ms. Hutching, the mailroom officer, told Major Faircloth he needed to change shirts, "[b]ecause he had blood spattered all over his shirt." T.238. Sergeant Paul was asked "to go get three shirts . . . two white shirts and one brown shirt . . . [o]fficers' uniform shirts." T.151. Major Faircloth walked toward the control room, then stopped in front of the mailroom and flexed his right hand. When the mailroom officer inquired about his swollen knuckles, Major Faircloth responded, "I knocked that son of a bitch's tooth out." T.238. Frederick Terrell Kirkland, a classification supervisor who is not related to the assistant superintendent, saw Major Faircloth that day and noticed his hand and his blood-spattered shirt. Deposition of Kirkland. When assistant superintendent Kirkland arrived, he spoke to respondent Faircloth, then accompanied him as he went back into the office where the inmate and sergeants Pumphrey and Watson remained. At some point Lieutenant Benny Chesnut entered Major Faircloth's office. After a few minutes, Mr. Kirkland, opening then closing the office door behind him, left to go down the hall to the bathroom. When he returned, Sergeant Sheppard opened Major Faircloth's office door to let the assistant superintendent back in. As he opened the door for Mr. Kirkland, Sergeant Sheppard "saw Major Faircloth slap the inmate in the face." T.482. Samuel Collier was seated in a chair at the time, his hands still behind him in handcuffs. Standing behind Mr. Collier, Sergeant Pumphrey rested his hands on the inmate's shoulders, facing Major Faircloth, who stood in front of inmate Collier. Sergeant Watson stood by the office door. Nothing obstructed his view of Major Faircloth's striking Samuel Collier, although he turned his head and looked at Sergeant Sheppard when the door opened. T.51. "[D]id you see the son of a bitch kick me?" Major Faircloth asked the assistant superintendent. T.83. He later apologized to Mr. Kirkland for hitting the inmate in front of him. T.330, 343. After Samuel Collier had been taken away, Major Faircloth asked William Paul "to get an inmate to go clean the blood up out of his office. But then he said, no not to get the inmate, that the inmate didn't need to see that mess, for [Paul] to clean it up [him]self." T.153. In order to place Samuel Collier in solitary confinement, which was the course decided upon, he had to be sent elsewhere, because appropriate facilities were not then available at Holmes Correctional Institution. Karen Roberts, a nurse who worked at Holmes Correctional Institution, was summoned. After she drew blood, took the inmate's temperature and pulse, and made notes recording his vital signs, Mr. Collier was driven in a van to Okaloosa Correctional Institution. When Michael G. Foley, M.D., chief health officer at Okaloosa Correctional Institution, saw him shortly after lunch on May 25, 1988, Samuel Collier still had "alcohol on his breath." The parties stipulated that laboratory tests on the blood Ms. Roberts took from the inmate "revealed a .17 blood alcohol content." T.10. He had reportedly been drinking "buck," a home brew concocted from prison foodstuffs. Ms. Roberts had noticed a laceration of the upper lip which she felt "did not need suturing" (T.111) and swelling around the eyes, which she testified she attributed to the fact that Mr. Collier was crying. She "[w]anted to put ice on his eyes . . . [but] it was impossible to keep ice" (T.113), or so she testified, so she did not try it. Samuel Collier's injuries, including loose teeth Ms. Roberts overlooked, are consistent with blows received in a fight and could not have been caused by a fall against a fence post coupled with a fall out of a chair onto the floor. T.188. Samuel Collier's injuries resulted at least in part from blows Major Faircloth administered. T.188, 196. When Dr. Foley examined Mr. Collier, both of the inmate's upper eyelids were swollen. An area of his scalp was swollen. There was "a massive hematoma to the upper lip, which is a massive swelling" (T.186) that made it protrude. He "had tenderness, abrasions and contusions to both cheeks. . . [and] some loose upper incisors." T.187. Dr. Foley ordered x- rays "to make sure there w[ere] no fractures." T. 184. The radiologist concluded that no bones were broken, according to Dr. Foley. Meanwhile, Major Faircloth told some correctional officers that they "were supposed to say that he had hurt his hand doing yard work." T.294. When Sergeant Sheppard asked about filing a report, Major Faircloth told him not to "worry about it, you didn't use force," (T.58) "you're not on the duty roster, they don't even know you were here" (T.94) or words to that effect. Major Faircloth's directive contravened Department of Corrections policy, which requires any correctional officer observing force being used against an inmate to prepare a "use of force report . . . and forward it to the Inspector General's office." T.59. The next day, Major Faircloth filed a written report, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, reciting that Sergeants Watson and Pumphrey and Lieutenant Chesnut had used force against Samuel Collier, but omitting any mention of the force he himself had used. On June 28, 1988, while he was interrogated by Inspector G. L. McLain, he falsely denied under oath that he had hit Samuel Collier and injured his own hand. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Inspector McLain had authority to administer the oath in the course of his official duties, and did so to respondent before interrogating him on June 28, 1988, and on July 6, 1988. On July 6, 1988, respondent again answered questions under oath and falsely answered affirmatively when asked whether he had been truthful during the earlier interrogation.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificates both as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 8th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-1395 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24-30 and 32-47 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3 and 31 are immaterial as to respondent Faircloth. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, it was not clear that a fence and gate were in place at the time. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, Major Faircloth first joined the group before they reached his office. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 23, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the exact number of times respondent hit Collier. Sergeant Sheppard saw respondent slap Collier only once. But the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that respondent landed additional blow(s), causing his knuckles to swell. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 23 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, it was not clear that a fence was up and that there was a need to pass between those two posts. That Collier hit or fell into a post was not established by the weight of the credible evidence. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7, the weight of the credible evidence did not establish that Collier was bleeding when he reached the security complex. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, credible evidence did not establish that Collier leapt from the chair and fell, striking a desk and the floor. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the nurse's testimony that she thought Collier's eyes were swollen because he had been crying has not been credited. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the nurse's findings were not "totally inconsistent." She apparently did not examine the inmate's teeth. Some of the swelling she anticipated evidently occurred. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 18, Sheppard's testimony has been credited. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 19, when Sheppard saw Faircloth slap Collier he might have been looking through the clear glass window. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the weight of the evidence did not establish that nobody saw Collier's injuries before he left HCI. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Joseph S. White, Esquire Gina Cassidy, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Roy M. Kinsey, Jr., Esquire Kinsey, Troxel, Johnson & Walborsky 438 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b), by unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, cocaine, and by driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, when effected to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or with a blood or breath alcohol level of .08 or above, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Respondent was a certified Florida Correctional Officer, having been issued certificate number 279704. On October 14, 2010, Respondent was operating or in actual physical control of his motor vehicle in South Miami, Florida. South Miami Police Officer Junior Vijil observed Respondent's vehicle stopped in the middle of the intersection of 58th Court and Southwest 73rd Street. After observing Respondent's driving pattern, Officer Vijil initiated a traffic stop. Officer Vijil approached Respondent's vehicle and made initial contact with Respondent. Officer Vijil observed certain indicators of potential impairment and requested Respondent to step out of the vehicle. Respondent complied with Officer Vijil's request. At the time of the traffic stop, Respondent had a passenger in the front seat of his vehicle. When Respondent exited the vehicle, at Officer Vijil's request, the passenger remained seated in the vehicle. Officer Vijil called for backup officers and awaited their arrival prior to performing field sobriety exercises with Respondent. The passenger remained seated, unsupervised, in Respondent's vehicle for several minutes until additional law enforcement personnel arrived. When South Miami Police Officer Louis Fata arrived on the scene, Officer Vijil initiated field sobriety exercises. At the conclusion of the field sobriety exercises, Officer Vijil did not immediately arrest Respondent, but rather, requested Respondent provide consent to search the vehicle. Respondent consented to the search. Officer Vijil began the search of the vehicle by first looking in the front interior compartment. He observed, in plain sight, a small, dark, plastic baggie in the center console. The center console's lid was absent. Although the baggie was dark in color, Officer Vijil could observe a white powdery substance that he believed was cocaine. After locating the suspicious substance, Officer Vijil removed the same from Respondent's vehicle and secured it in his patrol vehicle. A field test of the white substance was performed by Officer Vijil and Officer Fata, which resulted in a presumptive positive result for cocaine. Officer Vigil interviewed Respondent and the passenger concerning their knowledge of the suspected cocaine. After both individuals denied any knowledge of the substance, Officer Vijil arrested Respondent for possession of a controlled substance. Karen Wiggins, a criminalist at the Miami-Dade Police Department Forensic Service Bureau, performed a series of tests on the substance at issue, and credibly testified that the suspected substance was cocaine. Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation, the parties stipulate that, on October 14, 2010, Respondent did unlawfully drive or was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, when effected to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired; or with a blood or breath alcohol level of .08 or above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), by his violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six months, with the requirement that Commission-approved substance abuse counseling be completed prior to the end of the probationary period. It is further recommended that the Commission enter an final order dismissing the allegation that Respondent unlawfully constructively possessed a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether the conduct of Petitioner violated the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. As a result, Respondent maintains and operates a correctional facility, commonly referred to as the Pinellas County Detention Center, or Pinellas County Jail. Petitioner is a detention deputy employed by Respondent at the Pinellas County Jail (Jail) and has been so employed for approximately fifteen years. Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioner is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On May 10, 1997, while employed as a detention deputy by the Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to the B-Wing of the South Division working on the third shift. While on break that day, Petitioner went to the booking area of the Jail to meet his wife for lunch. Petitioner's wife, an employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, was working that same shift in the booking area. When Petitioner arrived in the booking area, in addition to his wife, also present were Detention Deputies Larry Potts, Lloyd Spain, Denise Borland and Detention Lieutenant Krista Rauch. Spain and Borland were processing an individual being booked into the Jail while Potts was assisting Rice’s wife. Lieutenant Rauch was located at the booking desk in a glassed area. On May 10, 1997, at the time the events in paragraph 3 were transpiring, Mathew Robinson was being booked into the Jail. After a portion of the booking process had been completed, Robinson was seated on a bench in the booking area awaiting a routine medical screening. During this process, Robinson became disruptive and began screaming and yelling. As a result thereof, Spain attempted to calm Robinson and de- escalate his disruptive behavior. When Robinson remained uncooperative, Spain, with the assistance of Potts, took physical control of Robinson and escorted him out of the booking area through a door commonly referred to as the “blue door.” Robinson was not shackled or handcuffed. Petitioner remained in the booking area. After Spain and Potts left the booking area with Robinson, Petitioner detected the shuffling of feet in the hallway area on the other side of the blue door and he proceeded through the door to investigate. Petitioner then observed Potts and Spain with Robinson who was in a half-squatted position with his knees bent. Following behind Potts, Spain, Robinson and Petitioner, was Detention Deputy Borland who had subsequently come through the blue door into the corridor in order to photograph the inmate. As Spain and Potts continued to escort Robinson down the hall, Petitioner followed behind them at a distance until they arrived at the vestibule area at the entrance to the C- Wing. At the entrance to C-Wing, there is a control booth that protrudes into the corridor area. During this entire escort process, Robinson remained unrestricted, other than his being held by Spain and Potts. At some point prior to the incident described in paragraph 10 below, Lieutenant Rauch left the booking area and entered the hallway through the blue door. When Spain and Potts arrived at the C-Wing entrance, the gate was already open. Robinson had escalated his level of resistance by screaming, yelling, fighting, and opposing efforts to walk him through the gate. Prior to the entry of Robinson and the detention deputies into the vestibule area of C-Wing, Robinson began trying to pull away from Spain and Potts and his feet were off the floor in an attempt to break the officers’ efforts to move him forward. However, Robinson did not throw punches, strike blows, or kick. During the escalation of resistance by Robinson, Spain did not lose physical control of Robinson, although he was pulled off balance. Robinson did break away from the hold being exercised by Potts for a few seconds. Neither Potts nor Spain fell to the ground. Neither Spain nor Potts requested the assistance of Petitioner nor were they aware of Petitioner’s presence. As the struggle continued, Petitioner intervened by kicking Robinson in the buttocks. Spain and Potts then took Robinson to the ground. Petitioner assisted in restraining Robinson and escorting him into C-1 Wing. Neither Petitioner nor other deputies have been trained to kick an inmate in the buttocks as a control technique. Kicking is generally used as a technique to impair or disable an inmate. At the time Petitioner kicked Robinson, he was not attempting to impair or disable Robinson. Deputies are taught to kick as a defensive maneuver when an inmate is approaching an officer. The kicking technique generally involves striking the inmate on the side of the leg in the calf area in order to effectuate a take down or redirect the inmate to the ground. The training provided to correctional officers in the use of kicking technique limits its use to circumstances requiring a counter- move to impede a subject’s movement toward an officer. At the time that Petitioner kicked Robinson, Robinson was not coming toward Petitioner. The kicking technique utilized by Petitioner lifting his leg, bringing it to hip level, thrusting the foot forward and kicking the inmate in the buttocks, is not an appropriate defensive tactic. This is not taught as a defensive tactic because it involves striking what is commonly called a “red zone.” Red zone areas include the head, neck and spine, and groin areas. A blow to red zone areas is appropriate only in a deadly force situation because such a blow may cause serious injury or death to the person struck. It is uncontested that the struggle Robinson engaged in with Spain and Potts did not create a situation where the use of deadly force would be appropriate. On May 10, 1997, shortly after the incident in question, Borland prepared an incident report in which she made no reference to Petitioner’s kicking Robinson. Borland was questioned about the incident by Corporal Powell of the Internal Affairs Division on May 28, 1997. During this inquiry, Borland made no reference to the kicking incident. Thereafter, Borland spoke to her supervisor, Lieutenant Rauch, and expressed her discomfort with preparing a report that would implicate Petitioner in misconduct. Lieutenant Rauch instructed Borland to prepare a report reflecting what Borland had observed. Borland complied with Lieutenant Rauch’s directive and, on May 30, 1997, prepared a memorandum. In the memorandum, directed to Corporal Powell, Borland indicated that on May 10, 1997, she had observed Petitioner kick Robinson. In June 1997, Borland told Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte that she did not want to write the May 30, 1997, memorandum. However, Borland stated that Lieutenant Rauch told her that both Borland and Rauch could get in trouble if Borland failed to write the memorandum. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation regarding the incident of May 10, 1997. As part of that investigation, on June 23, 1997, the Chain-of- Command Board took a sworn statement from Petitioner. After giving his account of the events, Petitioner was asked questions regarding the incident by Corporal Powell and Sergeant R. Alphonso of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau. Prior to the questioning, Corporal Powell instructed Petitioner “to answer questions directed to you during this interview truthfully and to the best of your knowledge.” While being questioned regarding the events of May 10, 1997, Petitioner admitted that he kicked Robinson in the buttocks and that this was observed by Lieutenant Rauch. However, from his point of view, the struggle that ensued between Robinson, Potts and Spain immediately prior to the kick could not have been observed by Lieutenant Rauch. From Lieutenant Raunch’s vantage point, as seen by Petitioner, her view of that struggle had to have been obstructed by the control room. Petitioner’s perception of where Lieutenant Rauch was at the time of the struggle is not inconsistent with that of other detention deputies in the immediate vicinity at that time. In response to questions during the proceeding of June 23, 1997, Petitioner was adamant in his denial that Lieutenant Rauch did not observe the struggle that Spain and Potts had with Inmate Robinson immediately before Robinson was kicked. Throughout his interrogation, Petitioner did not waver from this position, notwithstanding statements from Sergeant Alfonso that Lieutenant Rauch’s written statement gave “the inference that she saw that struggle.” Although Petitioner had responded when asked about the discrepancy in his statement and that of Lieutenant Rauch, Sergeant Alfonso continued to question Petitioner concerning whether the lieutenant observed the struggle. Among the questions asked by Sergeant Alfonso were: “Now, are you saying that [Lieutenant Rauch’s] being untruthful, that she’s lying about this?”; “And so what you’re telling us today is that Lieutenant Rauch is lying about seeing the incident?”; and “Your opinion is that Lieutenant Rauch is a liar?” In response to these questions, Petitioner answered in the affirmative. During the course of giving his sworn statement, Petitioner was asked whether he believed that Deputy Borland “lied in her statement against him.” Petitioner was also asked whether it was his “belief that Lieutenant Rauch put Deputy Borland up to that lie.” Petitioner answered both of these questions in the affirmative. At the time Petitioner responded to these questions, he believed that he was answering truthfully. There were two reasons that Petitioner believed that Borland’s second account of the incident was inaccurate and that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland what to put in the memorandum. First, Petitioner was aware that Borland’s May 10, 1997, incident report made no reference to the kicking incident and that Borland first mentioned the kicking incident in the memorandum dated May 30, 1997. Second, Petitioner based this belief on comments made to him by his wife. According to Petitioner’s wife, Borland had told another officer, Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte, that Lieutenant Rauch directed Borland to write the memorandum. Petitioner mistakenly concluded or interpreted this comment to mean that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland specifically what to include in the memorandum. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) presented its entire investigative file to the Chain-of-Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain-of-Command Board met and, after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Petitioner the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 021, relating to the custody arrestees/prisoners, a Level Five violation; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 024, relating to insubordination, use of profanity or insulting language towards a superior officer, a Level Five violation. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations is the basis for assigning 60 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner was assessed 60 disciplinary points. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for 60 points to be from a minimum penalty of a seven-day suspension to a maximum penalty of termination. In the instant case, Petitioner was assessed a ten-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in kicking inmate Robinson did not constitute a good correctional practice, and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of a correctional officer in an altercation is to engage in defensive maneuvers and to gain control of the inmate creating the disturbance. Although correctional officers are allowed to defend themselves, kicking an inmate in the buttocks serves no correctional purpose, does not constitute the proper use of defensive tactics and is not designed to maintain control of an inmate or a situation. Kicking an arrestee or inmate in the buttocks area is not appropriate absent a situation where great bodily harm is being threatened by the inmate. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in responding to questions during the course of giving a sworn statement do not constitute insubordination. Respondent was required to answer all questions truthfully, that is the truth as he knew or perceived it to be. In the instant case, Petitioner's comments were not made voluntarily nor were they directed to Lieutenant Rauch. Instead, Petitioner's statements were made in response to questions from a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau who was investigating the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of the conduct alleged in Counts I and II of the charging document and suspending Petitioner, without pay, for eight (8) days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIED 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 9th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 B. Norris Rickey Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
The Issue Whether Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that he is of good moral character, and should be granted an exemption from employment disqualification, thereby allowing him to work in a position of special trust or responsibility pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1995, the Orlando Police Department responded to an emergency call from Petitioner's residence. Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The domestic violence and false imprisonment charges were subsequently dropped. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault upon his wife, an act of domestic violence. On September 18, 1996, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the Orange County Circuit Court. Petitioner was given credit for 43 days time served in the Orange County Jail. He was also ordered to pay court costs. Petitioner was not placed on probation and was not ordered to attend domestic violence counseling. Petitioner disputes the narrative contained in the charging affidavit and claims that at no time did he threaten his wife, and that the firearm was present in the room only for cleaning, and was not displayed inappropriately. Petitioner's description of the events is not credible. Petitioner began work as a detention care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center in October 1995. The position required a level 2 background screening be conducted. On August 23, 1996, Petitioner submitted an affidavit of Good Moral Character which did not disclose his arrest or sentence. In August of 1996, a background screening request packet was submitted to the Background Screening Unit of Respondent's Inspector General's office. A preliminary FCIC/NCIC screening check conducted on Petitioner revealed that he had a disqualifying offense (assault on a spouse). His background screening received a rating of "Unfavorable Disqualifying." In a letter from Respondent dated August 7, 1997, Petitioner was notified that he had been disqualified and was, therefore, ineligible to work in a caretaker's position with Respondent. This disqualification was based upon the 1995 domestic assault charge. Petitioner is a 52-year-old Divinity School graduate and former church minister. Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, and a Master of Divinity Degree from Morehouse School of Religion in Atlanta. Prior to commencing his employment with Respondent, Petitioner had successfully worked with juveniles for many years in a variety of capacities, to-wit: school teacher, counselor, youth group leader, civic leader, and minister. Petitioner received numerous awards and certificates documenting his involvement with and commitment to the welfare of his community and of juveniles in particular. After starting his work as a Detention Care Worker at the Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center, several Juvenile Detention Center workers in both supervisory and co-worker roles testified to the exceptional quality and caliber of Petitioner's work with juveniles. Since the alleged incident of domestic violence three years ago, no claim of any other alleged illegal conduct has been made against Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Terry, Esquire 1407 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 536914 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynne Winston, Esquire Inspector General's Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner herein, Michael J. Hunter, was employed by the Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) in Sneads, Florida in November, 1979. Immediately after his employment he was given five weeks training at Raiford, Florida and served as a correctional officer at ACI from that point until July 7, 1983. The four performance reports rendered on him during the period of employment were all satisfactory or above and other than the instant case, he was subject to no disciplinary action during the entire period he worked for the Respondent. His function as a corrections officer was to maintain order in the dormitories, security for the area, and to protect inmates' safety. He worked the evening shift from 4 pm to midnight for three years and on the midnight shift from midnight to 8 am for 6 months. During the period of his employment he was instructed, and it was his understanding, that a corrections officer may touch a prisoner in the line of duty only to maintain order, to break up a fight, and to protect the safety of himself, the prisoner, or others but not to abuse a prisoner or to administer punishment. On June 3, 1983, he was instructed by his supervisor, Sgt. Hines, to proceed to the basement of the dormitory in which he was working to open up the TV room and the clothing line. When he arrived there, he found that the people assigned to operate the clothing line had not shown up yet so he went to the TV area to check on it. When he came back to the clothing room, he saw that two inmates, Wilkins and Ashbury, had broken into the room and stolen some underwear. He apprehended them and told all the prisoners in the area to go upstairs. All did except prisoner Watkins, the victim of the alleged assault in issue here who refused to go. It has been Petitioner's experience that some inmates refuse to obey the directions of anyone holding a rank less than sergeant. In any case, Petitioner was able to convince Watkins to go to the guard room upstairs and while there, Watkins and Petitioner got into a verbal dispute. Just as they were arguing, Petitioner's supervisor, Sgt. Hyatt, came into the office. At this point, Watkins jumped up and yelled at him and accused Petitioner of hitting him. Petitioner categorically denied striking Watkins. He admits telling Watkins he could have his "ass" for this but he does not believe that in the context of which that statement was used and the circumstances under which the situation took place, use of that word was necessarily inappropriate. It is Mr. Hunter's belief that a corrections officer such as he was would be ineffective and ignored if from time to time he did not use this type of language. He based this on his knowledge of the background and character of the inmates as well as their education level for the most part. According to Hunter, when Hyatt came in, Watkins jumped up and moved off to the side and yelled at Sgt. Hyatt to get Hunter "out of his face." Though Mr. Hunter denies intentionally touching Watkins, he admits it is possible that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose because at the time, they were very close. Young John Allen, another corrections officer at ACI, was on duty in the general area of this incident on the night in question. He overheard a disturbance downstairs and thereafter walked into the dormitory office. When he did, he saw 15 inmates come up from downstairs, excited, to see the duty sergeant. In response, Allen called Sgt. Hyatt who came into the room and started talking to the inmates. Just then, according to Allen, Hunter came in. At this point Hunter and Watkins started arguing. Hunter walked up to Watkins and talked to him in strong terms. Allen overheard Hunter say, "Boy, I want you bad." and put his finger in Watkins' face. During this time, the other inmates surrounding the individuals were becoming more and more excited. At this point, according to Allen, Hyatt called Hunter but Hunter did not respond. Notwithstanding Hunter's denial that he hit Watkins, Allen indicates that he saw Hunter hit Watkins with a short, quick punch to the left side of abdomen. Admittedly, this punch was not hard enough to knock Watkins down. While this was all going on, Allen heard Hyatt call to the Petitioner several times to no avail. Finally, Hyatt told Watkins to go outside and sit down. He also got Hunter to come back to the rear of the office. Once this was done, Petitioner again went out to where Watkins was sitting and again called him "Boy" and put his finger in Watkins' face. At this point, another officer came up and prevailed upon the Petitioner to leave. Allen contends that he was in the room with Hunter and Watkins at the time of the incident. Hunter contends that Allen was standing outside the room in the dormitory looking in through a wide glass window. He says that though he was at all times looking directly at Watkins, his peripheral vision is such that he was able to see Allen off to the side where he was standing. Allen contends he was approximately 6 to 8 feet away, slightly off to the side, and there were no obstructions to his view of the incident even though there were a lot of people in the room. Allen also contends that throughout this entire fracas, Watkins never jumped at Petitioner as is claimed but was trying to break away at all times. Watkins was sent for medical evaluation immediately after the incident as a part of standard procedure and it was determined that he received no injuries as a result of it. Watkins, sometime after the incident, but within a short time, came to Allen indicating his displeasure with the way Allen had handled the situation. In this conversation, Watkins indicated to Allen he did not want to see Petitioner fired on the basis of this incident. The structure of the guard force at ACI is quite similar to that of a military organization. The guards do wear uniform but do not carry weapons inside the prisoner area because of the volatile situation that can rapidly develop into a confrontational situation. While the use of bad language is not unusual, corrections officers generally have to, if at all possible, maintain their equilibrium because when an officer is upset and becomes involved in a scene, inmates also get upset. Because no weapons are carried, therefore, the officers have to be careful not to create, encourage, or maintain an explosive situation wherein they or someone else could get hurt. Within the guard structure the lowest or first level is that held by both Petitioner and Mr. Allen, corrections officer 1. Hyatt is a corrections officer 2, equivalent to the rank of sergeant, and in a lead worker position. Both CO 1 and CO 2 positions are in the same collective bargaining unit. A CO 2 has no disciplinary action authority and is not considered to be management. As such, a CO 2 can neither hire nor fire but may recommend either discipline or termination of employment. The supervisory level starts with CO 3, a grade equivalent to that of a lieutenant. This individual can approve leave, assign personnel, and effectively recommend disciplinary action which, ordinarily, is taken by the superintendent of the facility. Al Cook has been the superintendent of ACI for 9 years and as such has the authority to discipline and terminate employees in accordance with Department of Corrections rules and the appropriate statutes. After an investigation into the incident in issue here, he ultimately discharged Petitioner for striking an inmate. During his 15 years as a superintendent at one institution or another he has discharged one other corrections officer for physical abuse. Petitioner here was, he believes, however, the first. The other, a white officer, was discharged for kicking an inmate. Race was not in issue in the dispute here. Hunter and Watkins are both black. After the incident in question, Hyatt allowed Hunter to go see the lieutenant who gave him the opportunity to either go back to work or go home for the evening. Because he did not wish to work with Hyatt any more that evening, Petitioner chose to go home and report the following morning. When he did he was again told to go home, this time for several days, and return the following Tuesday. At this time he was interviewed by Colonel Jones who advised him to come back and see the superintendent on Wednesday, which he did. After waiting all day on Wednesday to see the superintendent, he was told to come back on Thursday. When he did, after waiting another hour, he was interviewed by Mr. Cook who heard his story. When he was finished, Cook indicated that he believed the other officers' stories over Hunter's and gave him the option to either resign or be fired. When Hunter refused to resign, he was discharged on July 7, 1983. Later that day he was shown the statements signed by 5 inmates and the other officers including Hyatt who said they saw him hit Watkins. These statements were not introduced into evidence at the hearing. However, Petitioner admits in his testimony that he saw them and that they exist. He also admits having come close to Watkins in an altercation which involved the use of bad language and which resulted from high feeling. Though he admits that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose, he denies punching him. However, the testimony of Mr. Allen, if believed, tends to indicate that he did. The inconsistency between the testimony of Petitioner and that of Allen as to where Allen was standing can be resolved easily in favor of Mr. Allen because, in light of the circumstances involving high feeling and the fact that Petitioner admits he saw Allen only out of the corner of his eye, it is most probably that Allen was in the room and not outside as Petitioner contends. In any case, in this specific as in the specific as to whether or not Watkins was hit by Petitioner, the resolution of the dispute if not clear from the evidence must be made on an analysis of the evidence on the basis of, inter alia, who has the most to gain or lose by telling the truth or a falsehood. In this case, it is clear that Petitioner has the most to lose by telling the truth because under the statute in question, if he did in fact unlawfully strike Watkins, he is subject to termination. Another factor to consider is the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand. Here both Allen and Petitioner appeared to know what it was they were saying and did not appear to be rehearsed. Their testimony appeared spontaneous and was believable. In light of the above, it can be concluded, therefore, considering the nature of the altercation and the high feeling involved, that Petitioner did in fact strike Watkins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition of Michael Hunter, to be reinstated to his position of employment and to be awarded back and front pay, benefits, and costs and attorney's fees be denied. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Preston T. Everett, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Dana Baird, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Bldg. F Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION OF HUMAN RELATIONS MICHAEL HUNTER, EEOC Case No. 046842030 Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 84-0316 DOAH Case No. 84-2891 vs. FCHR Order No. 86-015 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE Panel of Commissioners The following three Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. APPEARANCES For Petitioner Michael Hunter: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32325 For Respondent State of Florida, Department of Corrections: Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Preliminary Matters Michael Hunter, Petitioner herein, filed a complaint of discrimination with this Commission pursuant to the Human Rights Act of 197, as amended, Sections 760.01-760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), alleging that State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Respondent herein, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race (black). In accordance with the Commission's rules, the allegations of discrimination set forth in the complaint of discrimination were investigated and a report of said investigation was submitted to the Executive Director. On June 29, 1984, the Executive Director issued his Determination finding no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. On July 31, 1984, the petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the conduct of a formal proceeding pursuant to Rule 22T-8.16(1). The formal proceeding was held on January 3, 1985, in Chattahoochee, Florida, before Arnold H. Pollock, DOAH Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order in this matter on February 19, 1985. Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. Respondent filed a response. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was originally held on April 19, 1985, at which time the parties were advised that the Commission was unable to locate the record in this proceeding. The parties ultimately produced a copy of the record 2 and the deliberation was rescheduled to February 28, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida before the aforementioned Panel of Commissioners. After oral argument was presented by counsel for the respective parties, the Panel conducted its deliberation in this matter and determined the action to be taken upon the petition. Petitioner's Exceptions and Respondent's Response Petitioner excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to find that confrontations with inmates involving Correctional Officers Foran and Mayo were not comparable to Petitioner's confrontation. Petitioner further excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to consider Petitioner's statistical evidence showing that 17 percent of Respondent's workforce is black, whereas 75 percent of the individuals terminated in 1982 through 1984 at Petitioner's worksite, Apalachee Correctional Institution, were black. Respondent counters by asserting that the confrontations involving Correctional Officer's Foran and Mayo were not comparable to the confrontation involving Petitioner inasmuch as Respondent's internal investigations supported the respective disciplinary actions taken. Respondent further asserts that Petitioner's statistical computations, based upon only four terminations, were meaningless. Analysis and Discussion The record reveals that the Hearing Officer limited the scope of the proceeding to incidents which had occurred at Respondent's Apalachee Correctional Institution where Petitioner was employed at the time of termination. In his findings of fact, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was one of two correctional officers to be terminated by the superintendent of the institution for abuse to inmates. Petitioner was the first correctional officer discharged by the superintendent for such offense. The other correctional officer was white. We believe that the Hearing Officer improperly limited the evidence to incidents of like nature at Apalachee Correctional Institution. Petitioner claimed that white correctional officers had engaged in behavior similar to that with which Petitioner was terminated, but the white correctional officers were not similarly punished. If white correctional officers had been engaged in similar improper conduct known to Respondent and those correctional officers were not similarly punished, an inference is raised that Petitioner was disciplined for reasons other than improper conduct. Petitioner should have been allowed to present such evidence before the Hearing Officer because it would have tended to indicate that Respondent's reasons were pretextual. Support for this conclusion is derived from McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 972, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In McDonnell Douglas, the black plaintiff had been accused of illegal activity against the employer. The employer cited such unlawful conduct as a legitimate, nondis- criminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The supreme Court accepted this reason, but then held that the plaintiff had to be given the opportunity to rebut the legitimate reason. Plaintiff must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that petitioner's stated reason for respondent's rejection was in fact pretext. Especially relevant to such a showing would be evidence that white employees involved in acts against petitioner of comparable seriousness to the "stall-in" were nevertheless retained or rehired. Petitioner may justifiably refuse to rehire one who is engaged in unlawful, disruptive acts against it, but only if this criterion is applied alike to members of all races. Id. at 804. In this cause, Petitioner should similarly be afforded a fair opportunity to show that Respondent's stated reason for Petitioner's termination, corporal punishment of an inmate, was a pretext. The statutory provision governing corporal punishment of inmates which had been in effect from 1957 through the date of Petitioner's termination reads: Corporal punishment prohibited; penalty. It is unlawful for any corporal punishment, any cruel or inhuman punishment, or any punishment by which the flesh of the body is broken, bruised, or lacerated to be inflicted upon any prisoner at any time. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be discharged immediately and shall not again be employed in any capacity in connection with the correctional system and shall be punished as provided by law for whatever offense he may have committed in perpetrating the act. No prisoner shall be punished because of any report or represen- tation which he may have made to any inspector. Section 944.35, Fla. Stat. (1983). Inasmuch as this statutory provision had statewide application, the discipline given for corporal punishment of inmates should have been evenhandedly applied at Respondent's various correctional institutions. Moreover, evidence of Respondent's application of this statutory provision throughout its various institutions becomes especially relevant where the terminations at Apalachee Correctional Institution reflect a proportionately greater number of blacks being terminated at the institution than whites, but where Petitioner was the first person terminated at such institution for that particular offense. Therefore, petitioner should be afforded the opportunity to present evidence that white employees violated the above-cited statutory provision but were nevertheless retained. Remand Accordingly, the panel remands this cause to the Hearing Officer for further evidentiary proceedings consistent with this Order. It is so ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of September, 1986. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: BY: Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, dissenting. I would limit the scope of the evidentiary inquiry to Apalachee Correctional Institution and/or its superintendent and adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation of dismissal. FILED this 30th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. Betsy Howard, Clerk of the Commission
The Issue Whether the Petitioner' termination from employment was in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1999, the Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (Department) working as a correctional officer at the Santa Rosa County Correctional Institution in Milton, Florida. The Petitioner was employed as a Correctional Officer, on probationary status. On February 25, 1999, the Petitioner was arrested for a purported traffic violation by a law enforcement officer in Escambia county. An officer of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, at approximately 1:08 a.m., on that day, observed the Petitioner's blue Toyota Tercel run a stop sign. The officer pulled in behind the vehicle and the vehicle made a quick turn off the road behind a closed business establishment and turned off its lights. The officer stopped near the vehicle and approached the driver's side and asked the driver for identification. The driver was later identified as the Petitioner, Perry Foster. Mr. Foster told the officer that his one-year-old son had torn up his driver's license. While the officer was talking with the Petitioner the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. Believing a narcotic violation was taking place the officer summoned another officer with a drug-detecting dog. The dog detected marijuana in the vehicle. Both the Petitioner and his passenger, Eric Adams, were placed outside the vehicle while the investigation was continuing. Officer Price, who brought the dog to the scene, detected the odor of marijuana on the person of Eric Adams. Ultimately, Eric Adams allowed a search and Officer Price retrieved a small package of marijuana from Mr. Adams shirt pocket. Mr. Adams was arrested for "possession of marijuana under 20 grams." The officer found no marijuana or drugs inside the vehicle although the dog strongly alerted on the driver's seat where the Petitioner had been sitting. There was the odor of marijuana along with signs of blunt cigar usage. Blunt cigars are typically used, hollowed out and packed with marijuana to smoke marijuana, without revealing its presence and use. In any event, the Petitioner was not arrested for possession or use of marijuana, none was found on his person, and he was given a traffic citation and released. The friend or family member who was his passenger was arrested for possession of marijuana. The evidence is unrefuted that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle with a passenger, knowing that that passenger possessed and was using marijuana in his presence. The Petitioner's employer, specifically Warden Ardro Johnson, was made aware of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office offense report that detailed the above facts and circumstances concerning the Petitioner's arrest and the arrest of his companion on the night in question. While the Petitioner remonstrated that he only was charged with running a stop sign and had not been using drugs and that he later passed a drug- related urinalysis, that position misses the point that his termination was not because of drug use. Rather, the Petitioner was dismissed by Warden Johnson from his position as a probationary employee pursuant to Rule 60K-4.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, because his employer believes that he committed conduct unbecoming a correctional officer. The true reason the Petitioner was terminated was because, as delineated by Warden Johnson in his letter to the Petitioner of March 23, 1999 (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner made a personal choice to overlook, ignore, or fail to report a criminal violation occurring in his immediate presence. Warden Johnson thus explained that this leaves a clear question as to whether the Petitioner had, or would in the future, perform his correctional officer duties in the same manner by ignoring, overlooking or failing to report infractions. Because of this and because he was a probationary employee and thus had not yet established his full job qualifications, the Petitioner was terminated. There is no evidence that he was terminated based upon any considerations of his race. There is also no evidence that he was replaced in his position. Moreover, there is no evidence that if he was replaced he was replaced by a new employee who is not a member of the Petitioner's protected class. The evidence that the Petitioner was in the car at approximately 1:00 a.m., on the morning in question with a passenger who was possessed of and using marijuana is unrefuted and is accepted as credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Henderson Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Perry A. Foster 1882 Gary Circle Pensacola, Florida 32505 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, as set forth in petition, dated November 8, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert Marshall Stabler holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 306751, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1981, covering the area of elementary education. He was so licensed on May 9, 1979. (Stipulation.) Respondent was employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Pineda Elementary School, Cocoa, Florida, as a teacher from 1971 to May 1979. Respondent was also employed by Brevard Community College to instruct inmates at the Brevard Correctional Institution at Sharpes, Florida, for several years prior to May 9, 1979. (Testimony of Fisher, Brock, Curtis.) In late April 1979 a correctional officer at the Brevard Correctional Institution received information from a confidential informant, who was an inmate, that Respondent would bring marijuana into the institution on May 9, 1979. On that date, at approximately 6:15 p.m., Respondent entered the correctional facility and was advised by a correctional officer that college instructors were going to be searched that evening. Respondent was asked to submit to such a search and he consented to the same. Respondent was thereupon directed to the nearby "shakedown" room where his briefcase was opened and three packages wrapped in white paper were discovered. At this time, Respondent stated "That's just for my own use." A white envelope containing thirteen five dollar bills was also found in the briefcase. A narcotics officer of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department thereupon weighed and made a standard field test of the material contained in the packages and determined that it was cannabis in excess of 100 grams. The officer then placed Respondent under arrest for introducing contraband upon the grounds of a correctional institution. The packages were thereafter submitted to the Sanford Crime Laboratory for analysis and it was determined that they contained a total of 106.6 grams of cannabis and that two of these packages contained more than five grams of cannabis leaf material. (Testimony of Fisher, Pierce, Steger, Thomas, Boling, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) The regulations of the Brevard Correctional Institution authorize a search of visitors which is normally conducted on a random basis. If consent to search is not given, the non-consenting individual is not permitted to enter the institution. (Testimony of Thomas.) Respondent received outstanding teacher performance evaluations at Pineda Elementary School during prior years and is considered by his principal to be an above-average teacher. Another faculty member at the school characterized him as an "excellent" teacher. He excelled in dealing with students with disciplinary problems and had excellent relations with both students and faculty personnel. He was also considered by his supervisor and a fellow instructor to be the most outstanding teacher at the Brevard Correctional Institution who was highly successful in motivating his students. (Testimony of Curtis, Brock, Walker, Weimer, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1.)
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of four years. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. V. Richards, Esquire 1526 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780
