Findings Of Fact Born September 3, 1956, Stephen Darryl Hand holds police certificate No. 02-18775. Respondent Hand was employed as a police officer by the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department from July 3, 1977, to December 21, 1979. On December 22, 1979, he began working for the Melbourne Police Department, which he left in February of 1980, at the Police Chief's behest. In the fall of 1978, respondent was entrusted with the keys to the evidence locker at the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department. After Officer Martin came into possession of $14,990 in cash, it was stored in the evidence locker. Although seized in suspicious circumstances, the money was labeled as abandoned property, and not as evidence. Two weeks or so before he left Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, respondent stole fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) from the cash in the evidence locker. This was the first time that he had been custodian of a large amount of cash. During respondent's final week with the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, he and his replacement were directed to count the money again. Respondent then reported a shortage of $1,500 to Lt. Ferguson, without revealing that he had taken the money himself. He had used it for various personal purposes, including $250 he paid for the benefit of his sister. Lt. Ferguson reported the missing money to Chief Fernez who encouraged all personnel to take polygraph tests. Many resented this suggestion and morale problems arose. The theft made the local papers. When respondent, who was by that time employed by the Melbourne Police Deportment, was originally scheduled for a polygraph examination, he feigned illness and declined to take it. After Chief Fernez contacted Chief Miller of the Melbourne Police Department, however, he submitted to a polygraph examination, during which he denied knowing what had happened to the $1,500 he had recently spent. Some time later, respondent told Sergeant Keller of the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department that he had found the missing money among some papers at home. Respondent made full restitution before criminal charges were filed. On March 6, 1980, he pleaded guilty to grand theft, second degree and, on May 20, 1980, was placed on two years' probation, adjudication of guilt being withheld. Sixteen law enforcement officers testified on behalf of respondent to the effect that respondent was a good police officer who should be given a second chance even though he was guilty of an offense none of them could condone. Similarly, petitioner's witnesses commended respondent's conduct as a police officer, apart from the theft of a large sum of cash from the evidence locker, and the lying afterwards. To the extent that proposed findings of fact in petitioner's proposed recommended order have not been adopted in substance, they have been rejected as not established by the preponderance of the evidence or deemed irrelevant, after careful consideration.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke the certificate it issued to respondent, No. 02- 18775. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Corrigan, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen Darryl Hand 105 Elm Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the CJSTC. On March 29, 1987, He was employed by the City of Clearwater in the uniform patrol division. Respondent graduated from the police academy in 1985, and served one and one-half years with the Belleair Police Department before being hired by the Clearwater Police Department. On the morning of March 29, 1987, while on patrol in a City of Clearwater police car, Respondent drove into the driveway of Lisa Scholl, a young woman occupying that residence. Ms. Scholl heard the engine of a car running in her driveway and came out of the house to inquire why the police car was there. At about the same time, Respondent received a call to investigate a complaint. He told Ms. Scholl he had stopped because her front door was open and that he had to leave to answer the call received on his radio. As a matter of fact, Respondent, who was having marital problems at the time, was intending to ask Ms. Scholl for a date. Respondent had never met Ms. Scholl but had accompanied another police officer to Ms. Scholl's residence some months earlier and was aware of who she was and where she lived. Ms. Scholl surmised Respondent intended to ask her for a date before he received the call on his radio and departed. Shortly thereafter it started raining rather hard. Ms. Scholl glimpsed a man in a yellow slicker crossing the woods alongside her house and became concerned that some criminal activity was happening in her vicinity. She then walked into her bathroom where she saw the face of a man peering through the jaloused window of her bathroom. She screamed, and the man wearing a yellow raincoat ran through the woods toward a police car parked down from her house. Ms. Scholl then called her cousin to come over to her house and she called the police who sent an officer to investigate. During the course of the investigation, Ms. Scholl identified Respondent as the individual she initially spoke to while parked in her driveway and the man she observed peering through her bathroom window. When questioned, Respondent ultimately admitted that he had looked through the window to Ms. Scholl's bathroom but did so only for the purpose of seeing if there was another person in the house. Respondent acknowledged that he had done a stupid thing in looking through a window into Ms. Scholl's home, but contended that no immoral conduct was intended by this act and that his sole purpose was to attempt to learn if some other man was in the house with Ms. Scholl. Respondent's denial of any attempt at voyeurism is supported by Exhibit 2, a psychological evaluation of Respondent. This evaluation found Respondent to be psychologically competent in all respects; a conscientious, hard working individual with a high sense of responsibility and loyalty; with none of the criteria for voyeurism; and highly unlikely to be involved in similar situations in the future.
Conclusions This matter came before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) at a public meeting on July 11, 1997, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. It was alleged by Administrative Complaint that the Respondent had violated specified sections of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-27, Florida Administrative Code. In accordance with §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), a formal hearing was held on this matter, and a Recommended Order was submitted by an administrative law judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings to the Commission for consideration. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference. The Commission, having reviewed the Administrative Complaint and the Recommended Order, and being otherwise fully advised in the matter, approves and adopts as its own the administrative law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Recommended Order. The Commission further approves the administrative law judge's recommendations without modification. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this matter is hereby DISMISSED. This Final Order will become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement. A, SO ORDERED this 247” day of July, 1997. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION A a] Kb IQUO CHAIRMAN THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. ANY PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, P.O. BOX 1489, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302- 1489, AND BY FILING A SECOND COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 9.110, FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS RENDERED. NOTICE
The Issue The issues in this instance are promoted in keeping with an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, charging violations of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes. These allegations relate to the claim that Respondent was involved in a liaison with a prostitute in which he exchanged Valium for sex. The encounter between the Respondent and the prostitute is alleged to have occurred while the Respondent was on duty. This Valium was allegedly obtained from an automobile which was examined as part of the Respondent's duties as a law enforcement officer. It is further alleged that the Valium should have been turned in as part of his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a holder of a certificate as law enforcement officer, Certificate No. 98-10527. That certificate is issued by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and Respondent has held that certificate at all relevant times in this proceeding. Respondent has been employed as a police officer by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department in the relevant time period and it was during that tenure that Respondent is accused of having committed the offense as set forth in the administrative complaint. Debbie Ofiara is the only witness to the Respondent's alleged indiscretion while on duty. Ms. Ofiara is an admitted prostitute, who has drug problems so severe that she required specific program treatment to address them. In particular, that drug difficulty relates to the drug Dilaudid. In addition, Ofiara has served six months in jail for grand theft, a felony conviction. At the time of the alleged incident with the Respondent she was under the influence of drugs and was under the influence of drugs when she reported that incident to a police investigator in the Daytona Beach Police Department. When testimony was given at the hearing, Ofiara was attending a drug program while awaiting a sentence for a drug offense related to cocaine. She had pled guilty to that drug charge, a felony. Ofiara has been arrested for prostitution, arrests made by the Daytona Beach Police Department on three different occasions. She had been arrested for hitchhiking by Officer Cadenhead prior to the incident which underlies the administrative charges and indicates that she "took offense" at the arrest. Moreover, she acknowledges some past concern about her treatment in encounters with Officer Gary Gallion of the Daytona Beach Police Department in his official capacity. Ms. Ofiara claims that sometime in November 1982, in the evening hours, the Respondent, while on duty as a police officer, in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, approached Ofiara and made arrangements to meet her. She further states that this rendezvous occurred in Daytona Beach, Florida, and that in exchange for Valium tablets which the Respondent had obtained from an examination of a car he had been involved with in his police duties, which tablets were not turned in, Ofiara performed oral sex for Respondent's benefit. Some time later, Ofiara related the facts of the encounter with Officer Cadenhead to an internal affairs investigator with the Daytona Beach Police Department, Lieutenant Thomas G. Galloway. She also gave Galloway a bottle which she claimed was the bottle in which the Valium was found. The vial or container was not examined for any residue of the substance Valium or examined for fingerprints of the Respondent. Following Galloway's investigation of the allegations, the Daytona Beach Police Department determined to terminate the Respondent from his employment. That termination was effective February 11, 1983. Respondent was subsequently reinstated after service of a four-week suspension without pay by order of the City of Daytona Beach Civil Service Board, effective March 9, 1983. Having considered the testimony of Ms. Ofiara and the testimony of the Respondent in which he denies the incident with her, and there being no corroboration, Ms. Ofiara's testimony is rejected for reasons of credibility. As a prostitute, drug user, felon and person with a certain quality of animosity toward the Respondent and in consideration of the demeanor of the accusing witness and Respondent, her testimony is rejected.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly denied Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager for failure to establish good moral character as required by section 468.433(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-20.001(5)(b)3.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 468, Part VIII, Florida Statutes. In February of 2011, Respondent, Carl Allen Quesinberry, submitted an application for licensure as a community association manager to the Department. In May of 2011, the Department notified Respondent that it intended to deny his application on the ground that he had failed to demonstrate good moral character. Specifically, the Department indicated Respondent has exhibited a pattern of unlawful behavior which would indicate Respondent has little regard for the law, the rules of society, or the rights of others, and used the term "habitual offender" to describe him. A review of Respondent's criminal history discloses a series of 12 criminal convictions during the time period beginning May 5, 1985, through November 14, 2007. Specifically, Respondent was found guilty of the following criminal law violations on the following dates: Reckless Driving, May 3, 1985; Driving Under the Influence, April 4, 1996; Battery, September 27, 1996; Battery, August 15, 2001; Misdemeanor conviction, December 8, 2003; Two convictions for Battery, March 31, 2006; Revocation of Probation, March 29, 2007; Two convictions for Trespass of an Occupied Dwelling, June 29, 2007; Revocation of Probation, November 14, 2007; and Violation of Domestic Violence Injunction, November 14, 2007. A review of the criminal history for Respondent shows that he has not had any arrests, pleas, or convictions since November of 2007. At the time of Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager in February of 2011, it would have been over three years since Respondent had encountered any legal difficulties. Respondent presented the testimony of Michael Gerrity, the CEO of the World Property Channel in Miami, Florida, as a factual witness in this matter. Mr. Gerrity runs one of the largest real estate global news networks in the country. His company covers residential and commercial real estate news and trends. Mr. Gerrity testified he has known Respondent since ninth or tenth grade from attending the same high school, Lyman High School, in Longwood, Florida. He testified that he has known Respondent to be an honest and trustworthy individual in his real estate dealings and transactions. He believes Respondent has respect for others and the law, and that Respondent's criminal troubles have never affected his business dealings or those of his clients. Respondent has represented a wide variety of real estate clients, from those investing in property to those leasing space for their businesses. Respondent has represented Fortune 500 Companies as well as smaller local companies in his real estate dealings. Mr. Gerrity, Anthony VanDerworp, and Michael LaFay (Respondent's criminal defense attorney) testified that the bulk of Respondent's criminal matters stemmed from Respondent's dysfunctional relationship, which involved both individuals drinking. Messrs Gerrity, VanDerworp, and LaFay all believe Respondent has changed his life and his focus in the last three or four years. Respondent has undergone substance abuse counseling and his testifying witnesses all believe he has overcome his addiction and will continue to serve his real estate clients well in the future. Respondent did not offer any testimony or evidence from his counselors or physicians that he has overcome or controlled his prior substance abuse addition, so the evidence supporting his changed life is based upon his testimony and the anecdotal testimony of his friends, Messrs Gerrity, VanDerworp, and LaFay. Respondent testified that he has received counseling, moved to Kentucky, gotten married, had a child, received real estate licenses in both Kentucky and Alabama, and turned his life around. Respondent has been licensed in Florida for more than 25 years as a real estate broker. During that time, he has not been disciplined by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order denying Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Erica White, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl Allen Quesinberry 329 South Garcon Point Road Milton, Florida 32583 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Division of Professions Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent held a certificate as a law enforcement officer from June 15, 1979 through October 1, 1983. This certificate is currently inactive. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was employed in a law enforcement capacity with the Pompano Beach Police Department. On October 2, 1981, Respondent, who is black, filed a memo with the Chief of the Pompano Beach Police Department, alleging harassment of black officers and mistreatment of prisoners by police supervisors. Respondent also described an alleged beating by police in an incident which occurred on June 8, 1981. The June 8 incident came to Respondent's attention weeks later in a casual conversation with a Mr. Phillip Robinson who had witnessed the incident and described it to Respondent. Respondent, in turn, reviewed the files and found no "use of force" report which led him to conclude that the incident had been covered-up. At Respondent's urging, Robinson came forward and gave his statement to the Pompano Beach Police Department regarding this incident. An investigation of this incident and Respondent's other allegations was conducted by the department. Their findings and conclusions differed substantially from those of Respondent. Contrary to Respondent's contention, a use of force report had been filed. Also, Robinson did not actually see the police strike the detainee on the head nor did he observe six blows as related by Respondent. It must be recognized that Respondent was urging an investigation and did not intentionally misrepresent facts which he himself sought to have determined through such investigation. However, Respondent's accusations of police brutality, official cover up, and racial harassment were at best premature, where, as with the June 8 incident, he was neither a witness nor the designated investigator. The second incident on which evidence was presented arose when Respondent reported for reassignment as a "teleserve officer" on December 27, 1982. Respondent had been contacted at home and verbally told to report to Captain Sullivan at 11:00 a.m. for the new assignment. Sullivan observed Respondent outside his office shortly after 11:00 a.m. and directed him to come into the office to discuss his new duties. Respondent refused to come in stating that he had to go to the bathroom. Shortly thereafter he did return and enter Sullivans' office. An argument which involved shouting heard by other employees ensued, and Sullivan thereupon suspended Respondent and temporarily relieved him of duties. Respondent was in a guarded state of mind when he reported to Captain Sullivan. He had previously been under psychological evaluation on order of the department and had only three days previously filed several memos accusing police officials of racial harassment and requesting an investigation. Without Sullivan's knowledge, Respondent recorded that portion of the conversation which took place inside Sullivan's office. A transcript of this conversation revealed that Respondent was prepared to accept his new assignment, but believed that it was a desk job created to harass him. Respondent made several accusations of harassment which apparently angered Sullivan, resulting in a loud and angry exchange. Respondent established through the testimony of the former city personnel director and coworkers at the Pompano Beach Police Department that he was targeted for firing by police supervisors who wanted to get rid of him. This testimony also established that Respondent was a capable patrolman who had been commended for outstanding police work by both the department and members of the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges contained in its Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 26th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Department of Law WHITELOCK and MOLDOF Enforcement 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Post Office Box 1489 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 12489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a dentist, committed the offenses alleged in the second amended administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. References to Petitioner in this Recommended Order include the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which regulated the practice of dentistry prior to the creation of AHCA. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0005929. Respondent's main area of practice is general dentistry. Respondent's last known address is his residence at 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent lived at that address with his wife, Lisa Iver. Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant. Benzodiazepines, such as Valium and oxazepam, are central nervous system depressants that have the opposite effect of cocaine on the central nervous system. The usage of these two types of drugs by a cocaine user with medical knowledge may act to balance the visible and medically detectable effects of cocaine on the central nervous system. Since at least 1988, Respondent has been a cocaine addict. Various toxicology tests have reflected that he has taken a form of benzodiazepine following cocaine use. There are several factors that have worked to make Respondent's recovery more difficult. He has experienced severe marital problems, his mother was an alcoholic, and wife is also chemically dependent. The addiction recovery of one spouse directly affects the addiction recovery of the other. If one spouse falls off the wagon, the other spouse is very likely to fall out of recovery. The Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) is an independent program for monitoring certain impaired professionals, including dentists. PRN requires individuals to be evaluated and enter drug treatment, if appropriate, pursuant to a written agreement with the impaired practitioner. The PRN conducts random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between the treatment programs, PRN, and the Petitioner for the protection of the public. The advocacy of PRN is designed to protect practitioners who have been offered the opportunity to receive care instead of discipline. The PRN program is confidential and not subject to public scrutiny. THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - 1988 On or about March 12, 1988, Respondent was arrested as a result of a shooting incident involving his wife. Respondent was transported to South Miami Hospital due to his alleged cocaine abuse. Respondent was admitted to South Miami Hospital for substance abuse evaluation and treatment. During his evaluation and treatment at South Miami-Hospital, Respondent claimed a prior sedative overdose which required hospitalization at Mount Sinai Medical Center, allegedly due to his wife spiking his drink. During his evaluation and treatment, Respondent admitted to prior sporadic use of intra-nasal cocaine. Respondent also admitted to previously free basingcocaine, experiencing paranoia, and having other reactions from cocaine. Respondent refused a nasal examination. Detoxification was required and Respondent was diagnosed as possibly being addicted to cocaine. Respondent left South Miami Hospital against medical advice on March 15, 1988, two days after being admitted. Respondent was readmitted to South Miami Hospital on April 11, 1988. As a result of Dr. Iver's arrest in March 1988, and the recommendations of the doctors who evaluated him, the PRN was contacted. Respondent signed a Chemical DependencyContract with the PRN on or about May 23, 1988. On or about June 26, 1990, Respondent signed a Chemical Dependency Contract extending his monitoring for an additional three (3) years. On or about June 26, 1993, Respondent completed his PRN contract. AFTER THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - SEPTEMBER 1993 On September 21, 1993, the PRN received multiple telephone calls from Ms. Iver stating Respondent was using "free base" cocaine. She later retracted this story and stated that she had spiked his food. On that date, Mrs. Iver filed a domestic violence complaint (#93-33887) against Respondent with the Miami Beach Police Department. An assault rifle, and other gun-related items were taken into custody by the police. The offense report states that the attack by Respondent on his wife was a result of an argument regarding his "narcotic use." The PRN ordered Respondent to submit to a professional evaluation. On September 24, 1993, Respondent was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital for an inpatient evaluation. Dr. John Eustace was the evaluating physician. Dr. Eustace is board certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine and is the medical director of the addiction treatment program at Mount Sinai. During that evaluation, Respondent tested positive for oxazepam and cocaine. As a result of the inpatient evaluation, Dr. Eustace formed the opinion that Respondent was in relapse and recommended that Respondent sign a chemical dependency contract with PRN and that he refrain from practicing dentistry until he had entered a recovery life-style. Dr. Eustace used the term "relapse" without regard to whether the ingestion was voluntary or involuntary. Dr. Eustace was of the opinion that Respondent did not have an adequate recovery program in September 1993 because he was no longer involved in the PRN monitoring program, he was not attending or actively involved in the twelve step program for recovering addicts. During the evaluation, Respondent admitted responsibility for having an inadequate recovery program. Dr. Eustace's diagnosis on Respondent's discharge were as follows: Chemical dependency, inactive by history. Chemical dependency relapse behaviors, active. Obsessive compulsive traits. Adult child of alcoholic mother. Co-dependent behavior. Dr. Eustace's specific recommendations for Respondent pertinent to this proceeding, made at a time Respondent and his wife were contemplating divorce and before she entered a treatment program, were as follows: Reinstitute a program of total abstinence. Enter into a second PRN contract with the length of time to be determined by the PRN staff. Recruit a home group of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Recruit a sponsor for the purpose of working the twelve steps. Attend ninety meetings of AA or NA within the next ninety days. Detach from his office practice until his drug screen had cleared and he had entered a life- style of recovery. Detach emotionally and physically form his wife. Turn all further matters concerning his divorce over to his attorney. Obtain a personal physician to avoid self- medication. Begin a professional relationship with a therapist knowledgeable about the adult child of an alcoholic syndrome, knowledgeable about the disease of addiction, and knowledgeable about co-dependency treatment. PRN, based largely on Dr. Eustace's evaluation, recommended that Respondent enter into a new contract for monitoring and to continue treatment. Respondent refused to sign a new contract. On or about December 16, 1993, PRN forwarded a letter of complaint to Petitioner. Dr. Roger Goetz, Director of PRN, noted that Respondent had a urinalysis which contained metabolites of cocaine and benzodiazepines and that Respondent refused to voluntarily enter PRN. No further action was taken against the Respondent at that time. JULY AND AUGUST 1994 On or about July 7, 1994, PRN informed Petitioner it had information from a confidential informant that Respondent was free basing cocaine. The allegations stated that Respondent appeared to be "coked" up and failed to show up at his dental office. Dr. Goetz, Director of PRN, believed that intervention might be possible through a Miami affiliate. On July 7, 1994, Dr. Jules Trop, a doctor with the Miami affiliate of PRN, evaluated Respondent. Respondent denied any drug use but refused to submit a urine sample for drug testing. Dr. Trop observed Respondent's appearance to be disheveled and his speech pattern strained. Dr. Trop expressed the opinion that Respondent was in need of professional help. On or about July 26, 1994, the Agency was informed by PRN that Respondent refused intervention by PRN. As a result of the foregoing, an Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was ordered by the Agency on August 15, 1994. The evaluation pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was conducted a week after the Order was served upon Respondent. On August 23, 1994, Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, a psychiatrist, evaluated Respondent pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination. Dr. Steiner formed the opinion that Respondent presented characteristics of an addict in denial and was a potential risk to his patients. Dr. Steiner believed that objective monitoring was the only reliable way to ascertain the continued sobriety of Respondent. Respondent admitted to Dr. Steiner that he had used drugs in the past. He further admitted that he was an addict. JULY AND AUGUST 1995 On July 28, 1995, police officers from the City of Miami Beach Police Department were called to the Iver residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival the officers observed drug paraphernalia commonly associated with free basing cocaine in the bedroom shared by Dr. and Mrs. Iver. Respondent had been free basing cocaine prior to the arrival of the police. The officers confiscated the paraphernalia, but took no further action against Respondent that evening. On Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at approximately 8:38 p.m., police officers with the City of Miami Beach Police Department were dispatched to the Iver residence because Mrs. Lisa Iver called 911 stating that her husband Robert Iver had overdosed on cocaine. The 911 tape reveals a voice in the background making a loud verbal noise. According to the incident report prepared by the Miami Beach Police Department, Ms. Iver told the police officers who came to the Iver residence in response to the 911 call that the Respondent had gone crazy and was out of control due to free-basing cocaine. Accompanied by professionals from the City of Miami Beach Fire and Rescue Unit, the police officers entered the Iver residence and found Respondent naked and covered in blood. Additionally, the police discovered broken glass along with a cocaine pipe, propane torch, a glass beaker, and a can that had been altered to accommodate the smoking of crack cocaine. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker are items or devices commonly associated with free basing cocaine and are similar to the items removed from the house on July 28, 1995. Respondent indicated to the police officers at the scene that he had been free-basing cocaine and stated that he had taken a "hit" off the pipe and then thought he was being attacked by three men. According to the Miami Beach Police Department incident report, Mrs. Iver stated that Respondent had been smoking a lot of cocaine and then requested that she sodomize him with a sexual apparatus. Upon refusing, he began punching her in the chest and kicking her. He also pulled her across the floor by her hair. Ms. Iver had physical injuries that were consistent with the reported abuse by Respondent. Respondent was arrested for battery as a result of this incident. During this police investigation, Mrs. Iver was wearing a bandage on her chin and had two (2) broken teeth. Mrs. Iver stated that the observed injuries were a result of her husband, Respondent, punching her two days earlier, on Monday, July 31, 1995 after an argument regarding Respondent's drug abuse. A police photographer was called to the scene by Officer Hochstadt. Color photographs of Dr. and Mrs. Iver and of the scene were taken by the crime scene technician. The photographer's report listed the investigation as a possible attempted suicide. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker were taken into custody by the police. Respondent was transported by the Fire and Rescue Unit to Jackson Memorial Hospital emergency room for treatment. The States Attorney's Office charged Respondent with two counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia based on the events of August 2, 1995. On or about October 17, 1995, Robert Iver was found guilty of one count of use, possession, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia, and one count battery, after pleading nolo contendre to each charge. Adjudication was withheld and Iver was sentenced to twelve months probation for each charge to run concurrently. Among the terms of his probation was the requirement that he participate in a PRN approved recovery program. The aforementioned crimes relate to the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. 1/ THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDER - SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 On September 13, 1995, after reviewing the substance abuse history of Respondent and the foregoing police incident reports relating to drug usage in the middle of the workweek, Dr. Roger Goetz of PRN opined that Respondent is impaired and that his inability to practice dentistry poses an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. This opinion resulted in an Emergency Suspension Order being filed on September 15, 1995. Respondent has been prohibited from practicing dentistry since that date based on that order. MISCELLANEOUS FACTS BASED, IN PART, ON THE STIPULATION Respondent, by and through counsel, on approximately February 15, 1994, proffered to the Agency that Respondent had submitted himself to numerous drug screens and all were negative for any controlled or illegal substances. No actual laboratory reports were produced. From approximately January 1994 to June 1994, the Petitioner actively cooperated with Respondent's counsel to negotiate a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. Respondent has, at times, denied his addiction to cocaine after numerous past positive tests, treatment and counseling. Respondent's enthusiasm about prior recovery attempts tailed off as he became more involved with his dental practice. Lisa Iver testified that she and her husband, Robert Iver, Respondent, were getting along better since entering the Mount Sinai program in September 1995, because they were currently both clean and off drugs. THE SECOND PRN CONTRACT - OCTOBER 20, 1995 On September 22, 1995, Respondent went to Dr. Eustace for the purpose of establishing a program of personal recovery, marriage and family recovery, and reentry into the PRN. Mrs. Iver also entered a recovery program at Mt. Sinai. On October 20, 1995, Respondent signed a new contract with the PRN. While Respondent asserts that he "voluntarily" entered into this contract, that characterization is inaccurate since he entered this contract after the entry of the ESO. The order of probation entered in the criminal proceeding, also signed October 20, 1995, required his participation in such a program. By signing this PRN contract, Respondent agreed that he would have random unannounced urine or blood screens, that he would abstain from using all mood altering substances, medications, alcohol and others, that he would be monitored by a physician, that he would notify the PRN if he changed his address or employment; that he was to attend a self help group such as AA or NA seven times per week; that he would receive continuing care in group therapy one time per week; that he would attend a twelve step program for recovering professionals; that he would notify the PRN in the event of a relapse; that he would agree to withdraw from practice at the request of the PRN if any problem developed; and that his wife would also enter a recovery program. In his present capacity, Dr. Eustace provides evaluations for the PRN. In this respect he sees his role as that of a servant for the PRN. He renders reports and recommendations to the PRN. The PRN relies with confidence upon Dr. Eustace's opinions and reports. Since October 20, 1995, the date Respondent signed a PRN contract, Dr. Eustace has been his monitoring physician within the program. While in the program, Respondent has undergone psychological testing, personal interviews and has otherwise complied with the terms of his PRN contract. Dr. Eustace found no evidence of any chemical relapse, Respondent's behavior is one of compliance with the PRN and he is participating in a monitored group and in a peer professional group. Both Dr. and Mrs. Iver are progressing satisfactorily. It is important to the recovery life-style of Respondent that his wife continue progressing satisfactorily in her recovery program. One important difference in Respondent's life-style prior to his signing the October 20, 1995, PRN contract and subsequent thereto is that his wife is seeking professional help for her addiction. On October 31, 1995, Dr. Eustace wrote to Dr. Goetz advising him that it was his opinion that Respondent is adhering to a recovery life-style, is in full compliance with PRN directives, is not a danger to the public or himself and that he can safely practice dentistry. Dr. Goetz acquiesced in Dr. Eustace's opinion in testimony before the Board of Dentistry in November 1995. Both Dr. Eustace and Dr. Goetz testified that in their opinions, Respondent can practice dentistry with safety and without danger to the public health, safety or welfare as long as he is being monitored by the PRN. Dr. Goetz further testified that there has been a "decent" period of time over which to monitor Respondent since his emergency suspension in September. Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, who had evaluated Respondent in August 1994, expressed the opinion that Respondent was beyond hope. Dr. Steiner based this opinion on his one and one half hour conversation with Respondent in August 1994, on the testimony presented at the formal hearing, and on his observations of Respondent at a deposition and on the first day of the formal hearing. He did not review any medical records as he thought that they were not important. It was Dr. Steiner's opinion that Respondent was not safe to practice dentistry based primarily on the fact that Respondent had relapsed in 1993 and 1994 and therefore the PRN program was unsatisfactory for him. Dr. Steiner also questions Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. Dr. Steiner disagrees with Dr. Goetz and Dr. Eustace and states that they are emotionally involved with his recovery. This emotional involvement, in Dr. Steiner's opinion, prevents them from giving an objective medical opinion. However, Dr. Eustace clearly stated that all of his opinions related to Respondent were based upon the professional relationship and were medical opinions. Dr. Goetz stated that he had never met Respondent until the Board's November 1995 meeting and has relied, in most part, on the opinions expressed by Dr. Eustace. There was testimony as to the dangers of a recovering addict. An addict may be sober one day and under the influence of an addictive substance the next. It is possible that even after signing a PRN contract and being monitored, the Respondent may relapse. It is also possible that if the Respondent falls off the wagon or falls out of recovery, he could harm a patient before PRN is notified and appropriate action is taken. It is also true that no one, including PRN, Dr. Goetz, and Dr. Eustace, can guarantee that the Respondent will not use cocaine, and no one can guarantee that Respondent is able to practice dentistry with reasonable skill and safety. The greater weight of the evidence established, however, that the PRN was developed to assist recovering addicts, that the program is as good as any of its type, and that the program works as long as the impaired practitioner is adhering to the terms of the contract. The testimony of Dr. Eustace and of Dr. Goetz on January 10, 1996, that Respondent is presently safe to practice dentistry and that he poses no danger to the public's health, safety or welfare is more persuasive than that of Dr. Steiner that Respondent is beyond help. This conclusion is reached, in part, because of Dr. Eustace's expertise, his extensive work with the Respondent, and because Respondent was able to practice without incident while being monitored by the PRN. It is also concluded that Dr. Eustace is in a better position than Dr. Steiner to evaluate Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. The PRN program worked for Respondent in the past as he was able to safely practice between 1988 and 1993 when he was being monitored pursuant to a PRN contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 466.028(1)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00, which suspends his license to practice dentistry until September 14, 1996, which requires the PRN to attest at its Board meeting in August 1996 that Respondent has adhered to the terms of his PRN contract and that he remains capable of safely practicing dentistry, and which places his licensure on probation for as long as he practices dentistry in Florida. It is further recommended that the terms of his suspension and the terms of his probation require that he maintain a contract with the PRN at all times and that he strictly adhere to all terms of the PRN contract. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded for these two offenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1996 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 2nd day of February 1996.
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1989, petitioner, Donald Ray Ballard, filed an application with respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) for a Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "C" private investigator's license. Pertinent to this case, the application, which was attested to by petitioner, averred that he had never been convicted for any violation of the law. By letter of February 8, 1990, the Department timely denied petitioner's application predicated on its contention that petitioner had been convicted of four felonies on April 28, 1980, to wit: sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine, possession of a short barreled rifle, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing, which contested the fact that he had ever been so convicted, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At hearing, the Department introduced into evidence certified copies of a judgment, order and commitment entered by the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, on April 28, 1980, and bearing Case No. 79-2970 CF B 02. Those documents reflect that one Donald Ballard entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sale of cocaine (Count I), possession of cocaine (Count II), possession of a short barreled rifle (Count III), and possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Count IV). The documents further reflect that such person was found guilty on Counts I and II and that imposition of sentence was withheld, and that adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld as to Counts III and IV. As to each count, such person was placed on probation for a period of 5 years, to run concurrently with each other, under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner denies that he and the Donald Ballard so charged and convicted are the same person. Officer Stephen Lobeck, the officer who arrested the person charged and convicted, as heretofore discussed, identified petitioner within a 90 percent degree of certainty as the same person he arrested. Melanie Eggleston, who was employed as a probation parole officer with the Florida Department of Corrections from 1980 until April 1985, positively identified petitioner as the same Donald Ballard she supervised as a probationer following his conviction for drug dealing. Given such credible identification, and the fact that the term of probation for the person she supervised was due to terminate in April 1985, it is more likely than not that the respondent is the same Donald Ballard who was convicted on April 28, 1980, as heretofore discussed. In concluding that respondent was so convicted on April 28, 1980, it has been unnecessary to consider the arrest record of the Sheriff's Office, Palm Beach County, Florida, for August 3, 1979 (Respondent's exhibit 3, page 2) or Officer Lobeck's arrest report (Respondent's exhibit 2). These documents are hearsay, as discussed supra at footnote 3, but due to the provisions of Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes, are, nevertheless, admissible in administrative proceedings to supplement or explain competent evidence. Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 495 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Here, the persuasive testimony of Officer Lobeck and Ms. Eggleston, provided competent proof of petitioner's identity as the Donald Ballard who was convicted on April 28, 1980. Were the arrest record considered, as supplementing that proof, it would be supportive of the ultimate conclusion reached. In this regard, the arrest record identifies the subject as Donald Ray Ballard; his local address as 149 Granada Drive, Palm Springs, Florida; his occupation as disabled veteran; his date of birth as December 2, 1931; his social security number as 240-40-4932; and his general description as that of a white male, height 5'7", weight 144 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, and medium complexion. Petitioner's general description is grossly consistent with the description contained in the arrest record, his residence address at the time was 149 Granada Drive, Palm Springs, Florida, and he is a disabled veteran. Further, while the identification petitioner produced at hearing referenced a date of birth of December 3, 1931, the proof also reflects that he had, on other occasions, been attributed with a date of birth of December 2, 1931. Specifically, the two DD214 forms he attached to his application to evidence his military service, as well as his transcript from Indiana Technical College, reflect a date of birth of December 2, 1931. Finally, petitioner's social security number has been variously reported as 240-40-4937 and 240-40-4937A. But for the last digit, petitioner's social security number is consistent with the social security number contained on the arrest record. 4/ On balance, the arrest record is supportive of the competent proof which identified petitioner as the Donald Ballard convicted on April 28, 1980.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for a Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "C" private investigator's license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March 1991.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that he used his law enforcement badge and credentials to misrepresent himself as acting in a formal law enforcement investigative capacity, when he was actually engaged in a private matter. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by the parties Respondent David A. Thomasun (hereafter "Thomasun") holds auxiliary law enforcement certificate number 01-6739, issued by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 16, 1979, and holds law enforcement certificate number 03-84-002-03, issued by said Commission on November 5, 1984. On June 27, 1988, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Thomasun entered the Broward General Medical Center for the purpose of photographing an individual named Phillip Ambrose, who, unknown to Thomasun at the time, had shortly before been arrested by the Pompano Beach Police Department, and subsequently had been taken to the Medical Center by the Pompano Beach Police for further examination. Thomasun was then an auxiliary special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, but was not on duty at the time he entered the Medical Center. He had not been authorized or requested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the Pompano Beach Police Department, or any law enforcement agency to photograph Ambrose for any purpose. Thomasun had been hired by a personal injury attorney to take photographs of Ambrose, who was the attorney's client, at the Medical Center. Thomasun had no reason for being in the Medical Center other than to take said photographs for said attorney. Thomasun approached Pompano Beach Police Officer Scott Winters, who was guarding Ambrose, and after Officer Winters searched his camera bag and his pockets, and viewed other personal identification such as his driver's license, Thomasun displayed to Officer Winters his FDLE auxiliary special agent credentials, consisting of a black leather case containing two identification cards, one with a photograph, and a badge attached and visible on the exterior of the case. Said credentials identified Thomasun as an auxiliary special agent with FDLE. Shortly afterward, Officer Winters left the immediate area to make some telephone calls, without permitting Thomasun to take any photographs of Ambrose. Thomasun then departed without taking any photographs. On the following day, June 28, 1988, Thomasun related his account of the incident of the preceding day to his immediate supervisor, Special Agent Joyce Dawley, and to Assistant Chief of Regional Operations Harry Solowsky and Special Agent Supervisor George Vilardi. Thomasun was terminated from his position as auxiliary special agent with FDLE on June 28, 1988. Facts established by evidence at hearing Thomasun's termination from his position as an auxiliary special agent with FDLE was based on the information gathered by FDLE du ring the course of its investigation of the incident on June 27, 1988, at Broward General Medical Center. 2/ Thomasun's stated purpose for going to the hospital room on June 27, 1988, constituted, by his own admission, a direct conflict of interest with his duties as an auxiliary law enforcement officer. Shortly after realizing that the situation in the hospital room represented a conflict of interest, Thomasun left the hospital room. At all times material to this proceeding, auxiliary special agents of the FDLE were subject to the provisions of Procedural Order 87-2. Section I.C. of that procedural order read as follows: FDLE auxiliary special agents are authorized to function as regular law enforcement officers only during specific tours of duty and investigative situations. When off duty, the auxiliary special agent may only act in the capacity of a private citizen. Auxiliary special agents can only function as regular law enforcement officers when under the direct control and supervision of a full-time special agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Section VI.A.3. of Procedural Order 87-2 read as follows: Although the display of credentials will only be permitted while in an on-duty status in the company of a full-time sworn agent, the auxiliary special agent will be permitted to keep his/her credentials while in off-duty status provided they do not display or attempt to exercise official powers unless in an on-duty status. Thomasun was thoroughly familiar with the above-quoted provisions of Procedural Order 87-2.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March 1992.
