Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional Officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Linda Dunham (Dunham), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 26, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Dunham. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Dunham had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Dunham and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Dunham filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Dunham denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Dunham on November 23, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that in 1970 Dunham was traveling with a dinner theatre and would occasionally take amphetamines, which she obtained from a friend, to stay awake. In the early 1970s, Dunham also used marijuana approximately twice a month over a three-year period. After terminating such use in the early 1970s, she did not again use marijuana until 1985 when she tried it one time at a birthday party. Dunham's use of cocaine was sporadic and infrequent, totalling no more than 5 times over the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. Other than as heretofore found, Dunham has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Dunham's background, that Dunham possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her prior use of controlled substances. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Dunham, born January 22, 1953, was 18-20 years of age when she used amphetamines and marijuana in the early 1970s, and her use of cocaine was limited to approximately five times during the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. But for having tried marijuana one more time in 1985, Dunham has not otherwise used controlled substances. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Dunham's use of controlled substances was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Dunham has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Dunham was certified by the Commission on June 17, 1988, for completion of the 675-hour basic correctional officer course, and has received two commendations during the course of her employment with the County. She is current on all her financial obligations, and otherwise enjoys a good reputation in the community. Overall, Dunham has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Linda Dunham, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June 1989.
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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b), 2/ by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) or (7); and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Correctional Certificate 92776 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections. Respondent married Ms. Minnie Williams on May 6, 1988, in Lake City, Florida. They had one child, Blake, in 1990. They separated in September, 1993, and were divorced in November, 1994. The court awarded custody of the child to Respondent. In 1988, Respondent was in the Navy, stationed aboard the USS Saratoga, and based in Virginia. After Respondent and Ms. Williams were married, Respondent returned to Virginia. Ms. Williams remained in Lake City for several months before moving to Virginia to live with Respondent. Approximately one year after the marriage, problems developed in the marriage. Ms. Williams did not assist in the daily needs of the household, was unable to stay in school, and was not able to keep a job. Respondent's efforts to solve the marital problems were unsuccessful. His attempts at counseling failed to improve communications between the couple. In late 1989, Respondent informed Ms. Williams that the marriage was not going to work. He told Ms. Williams that he thought they should divorce. Ms. Williams returned to her mother's home in Lake City. Respondent's ship was transferred to Mayport, Florida in 1990. Ms. Williams did not want a divorce and did not want to separate from Respondent. Sometime in 1990, Respondent left the Navy and obtained employment with the Department of Corrections. Between 1990 and 1993, the couple maintained the marriage in an effort to provide a home for their child. Whenever Respondent attempted to discuss divorce, it resulted in a heated argument. Ms. Williams frequently threatened to "ruin" Respondent. The Wrench On March 9, 1993, Respondent counseled a co-worker who was distraught over her husband's affair. Respondent learned that the woman with whom the husband was having an affair was Respondent's wife. Respondent went home to pack his clothes and leave home. An argument ensued regarding Ms. William's infidelity. Respondent packed some of his personal belongings and left home. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on the same day, Respondent returned home for more of his personal belongings. Respondent was still very angry. Respondent and Ms. Williams became involved in another argument. During the argument, Respondent continued to pack his things. He retrieved a large wrench from his closet. Respondent was walking down the hallway leading from the bedroom to the front door. Respondent had the wrench in one hand and other personal belongings in the other hand. Respondent told Ms. Williams that this time he was leaving for good. It was approximately 12:10 a.m. on March 10. Ms. Williams told Respondent that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. Respondent turned abruptly around to face Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams was startled and frightened. She ran into the bedroom from the hallway where she scraped her leg on a jagged corner of the bed, fell, and struck her right hand on the open sliding glass door of the bedroom. Respondent never struck Ms. Williams in any way, with his hands, the wrench, or otherwise. The injuries to Ms. Williams were minor. Respondent left. Ms. Williams spent the night in her car. The next day she reported the incident to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff"). Ms. Williams reported to the investigating officer that Respondent beat her with his hands and a wrench for about 15 minutes. The injuries observed by the investigating officer were not consistent with such a beating. The injuries to Ms. Williams were consistent with a trip and fall. Ms. Williams had a three inch cut on her left leg at approximately the height of the corner of the bed. She also had a bruise on her right hand and some swelling. Ms. Williams did not seek medical treatment for her injuries. On March 16, 1993, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. On April 5, 1993, Respondent entered into a Misdemeanor Intervention Agreement scheduled for six months. The agreement was terminated early on September 3, 1993. Respondent established a separate residence. Respondent had no further relations with Ms. Williams except those necessary for the care of their child. The Lip Respondent resided with his girlfriend and shared her car. Ms. Williams used Respondent's truck to commute to work. On March 27, 1994, Respondent went to Ms. Williams house to pick up clothes and diapers for his son. Ms. Williams routinely failed to deliver those items when she dropped off their child to Respondent. Ms. Williams was not home, and Respondent waited for her. When Ms. Williams arrived in Respondent's truck, the truck was driven by Ms. Williams' boyfriend. Respondent was angered that Ms. Williams' boyfriend was driving Respondent's truck. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend attempted to turn the truck around and leave. Respondent ran behind the truck so that the vehicle could not be turned around. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend were angry that Respondent blocked their exit. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend got out of the truck. The boyfriend and Respondent engaged in a physical altercation. During the altercation, Ms. Williams attacked Respondent. She hit and kicked him and jumped on his back. Either Respondent or the boyfriend inadvertently struck Ms. Williams in her lip. She went to the Lake City Medical Center for medical treatment. At the Medical Center, Ms. Williams reported the incident to the Sheriff. Her injuries were minor. On April 6, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. He entered a plea of nolo contendere. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on supervised probation for one year. On May 27, 1994, the supervised probation was converted to unsupervised probation with the provision that Respondent was not to contact Ms. Williams. The Window On April 4, 1994, Ms. Williams drove to Respondent's house to pick up their child. Respondent's girlfriend and mother were inside the house with him. Respondent went outside the house to the car. Ms. Williams got out of the car. She became belligerent and verbally abusive toward Respondent. Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave. Ms. Williams backed away from Respondent, struck the car window with her posterior, and the window broke. Ms. Williams became angrier. She threatened to have Respondent "messed up." Ms. Williams left with her child and went to her aunt's house. She telephoned the Sheriff and filed a complaint. On April 25, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with criminal mischief. Respondent determined that the criminal charges would be dropped if he paid for the window. Respondent gave Ms. Williams a money order for $159. On May 25, 1994, the state attorney filed a nolle prosequi declining to prosecute Respondent. In November, 1994, Respondent obtained custody of the only child of the marriage with Ms. Williams. Respondent has retained custody of the child. The Knife On February 1, 1995, Ms. Williams went to Respondent's house to deliver some clothes for their son. They went into the kitchen. Ms. Williams asked about reconciliation. Respondent stated that he wanted nothing to do with Ms. Williams. She became angry. She told him that she was going to "fix him." Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave, and she did. On February 2, 1995, Ms. Williams telephoned the Sheriff. She claimed Respondent had threatened her with a knife and beaten her for 15 to 30 minutes when she was at his home the previous day. Respondent did not batter Ms. Williams. He did not threaten her with a dangerous weapon. The investigating officer observed no injuries on Ms. Williams. She did not seek medical treatment for the alleged injuries even though she knew she was pregnant at the time with her boyfriend's child. A neighbor observed Ms. Williams leaving Respondent's home on February 1, 1995. She had no observable injuries and was gesturing to Respondent as she left. The state attorney charged Respondent with two misdemeanors, battery and exhibiting a dangerous weapon. The court found respondent not guilty of the latter offense but guilty of the former. The court sentenced Respondent to one year of unsupervised probation with the special condition that there be no contact with Ms. Williams. The Handgun On February 10, 1995, Respondent and Ms. Williams were driving in separate cars near the Gateway Plaza. Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office. She alleged that Respondent drove beside her and pointed a handgun at her. The state attorney charged Respondent with improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. On October 3, 1995, the court found Respondent not guilty of the offense. Respondent did not exhibit a dangerous weapon. Paternity In 1995, Ms. Williams became pregnant with the child of her boyfriend. Ms. Williams charged Respondent with paternity. Paternity tests proved that Respondent was not the father of the child. Respondent had not had sex with Ms. Williams since 1993. Other Matters After their divorce, Ms. Williams repeatedly threatened Respondent by stating that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. She filed approximately 20 complaints against Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. She also contacted the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to report Respondent for child abuse. Respondent did not report the criminal actions filed by Ms. Williams to his employer and received a written reprimand for not reporting the criminal matters. Respondent is still employed by the Department of Corrections.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(6) and (7) and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be exempted from employment disqualification, thereby allowing her to work in a position of special trust at the Hobe Sound Child Care Facility or a like facility.
Findings Of Fact Sometime during 2001, the Petitioner applied for employment with the Hobe Sound Child Care Facility. The position she applied for would have brought the Petitioner into direct contact with children. The Petitioner's desire to work at the Hobe Sound Child Care Facility is in part because at least one of her own children attends that facility, and she would have an opportunity to interact with her own children while working with other children. By letter dated December 6, 2001, the Petitioner was advised of the results of the preliminary screening, and was also advised of the procedure for requesting an exemption from employment disqualification. The Petitioner thereafter filed a timely request for exemption. Following the Petitioner's request, a committee designated by the Department conducted an informal hearing. The Petitioner participated in the informal hearing. Following the informal hearing, the committee voted to deny the requested exemption. The committee's decision to deny was based primarily on the committee members' impression that the Petitioner failed to show rehabilitation by failing to accept responsibility for the crime for which she was convicted. The committee felt that the Petitioner's continuing insistence that she was innocent of the crime and had been wrongfully convicted of crimes committed by others constituted a failure to accept responsibility for what she had done. By letter dated January 23, 2002, the Petitioner was advised that her request for exemption from employment disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes, was denied. Thereafter, the Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing to challenge the denial of her request for exemption. The disqualification of the Petitioner is based solely on her being found guilty of the crime of third degree grand theft. When the Petitioner was charged with third degree grand theft, she entered a plea of "not guilty" and went to trial on the criminal charges. At the conclusion of the criminal trial the jury found the Petitioner to be guilty as charged, and on July 18, 1994, the Circuit Court of Martin County entered an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation. The events which underlie the Petitioner's criminal trial took place at the Payless Shoes store in Stuart, Florida, during the several months immediately preceding December of 1993. During that time period, the Petitioner and several other people worked at the Payless Shoes store and had access to the merchandise and to the cash register. Some, but not all, of the employees were stealing cash and merchandise from the shoe store. An audit was conducted at the subject store, and on December 3, 1993, a Loss Prevention Investigator employed by Payless Shoes interviewed the Petitioner regarding her knowledge of thefts in the store where she worked. The Petitioner cooperated with the investigator and explained to him how the employees had been stealing cash and merchandise from the store. During the interview, the investigator prepared a written statement in his own handwriting. At the end of the interview the investigator told the Petitioner that he had prepared a written statement of everything she had told him and asked her to sign the statement. The Petitioner signed the statement without reading it. Later the same date the Petitioner was arrested. At the time of her arrest she told the arresting officer that she was innocent. During the arrest process the Petitioner became aware that the statement she had signed without reading implicated herself as one of the participants in the thefts she had described to the investigator. The Petitioner contended then, and continued to contend at the hearing in this case, that the investigator who took her statement either misunderstood what she said or incorrectly wrote what she said. The Petitioner admits that she had guilty knowledge of the fact that other employees where stealing merchandise and money from the store, and she now realizes that she should have told her employer about the thefts by others. However, the Petitioner has always contended that she never participated in any thefts from the store. Without at this late date trying to determine whether the jury's finding of guilty was correct, it is sufficient to note that, her assertions of innocence of the crime charged, notwithstanding, the Petitioner presently appears to be sincerely remorseful regarding her failure to timely report to here employer the criminal actions of other employees. Further, the Petitioner now appears to understand the importance of being honest in all matters concerning one's employment. In the many years that have passed since 1993, the Petitioner seems to have made sincere efforts towards rehabilitation. She is now active in her church and is involved in raising her own children, as well as trying to be of assistance to other children in her community. She is highly motivated to work in child care. To that end she has taken numerous courses to learn how to provide good child care. She enjoys working with children and can be expected to do a good job in such a position. Following her sentence on the criminal charge, the Petitioner made good faith efforts to timely comply with all conditions of her probation. She had occasional difficulties making the financial payments required by her sentence due to difficulties in obtaining steady employment. In sum, the Petitioner is a decent and honorable person who enjoys working with children, appears to be good at working with children, and should not be disqualified from employment positions working with children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 19th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Alecia Fugate-Smith 914 East Eighth Street Stuart, Florida 34994 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated January 31, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Dieguez is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Sweetwater Police Department. As such, he holds a position of high trust. Dieguez abused that trust by failing to maintain good moral character. Specifically, he sexually abused a minor over a period of years, and lied under oath to law enforcement officers investigating the abuse. For almost a decade, Dieguez was in a relationship of trust with a young girl (the victim). Dieguez abused that trust by taking advantage of his access to the victim to sexually violate her on repeated occasions, beginning when she was well below the age of consent. Dieguez maintained the victim's silence by virtue of his position of authority over her. More specifically, at all times material to this case, Dieguez is the primary breadwinner for the victim, the victim's mother, and the victim's two siblings. Dieguez alternated acts of kindness and generosity toward the victim with threats and intimidation. Dieguez also left a paper trail which, for reasons set forth below, provided clear and convincing evidence of his guilty knowledge of his improper conduct toward the victim. Dieguez created at least three documents which he referred to as "contracts" between himself and the victim. The contracts first came to light on February 15, 2001, when the victim's mother accompanied her daughter to the Metro-Dade Police Department to lodge an abuse complaint against Dieguez. At that time, the victim told investigators, "He wrote me contracts, like stating something in return, like touching my vagina, having sexual intercourse, or me to ejaculate him." In the context of Dieguez' relationship with the victim and, more significantly, in considering the "contracts" as a whole, it is clear that the contracts were part of an ongoing scheme by Dieguez to induce the victim to continue to submit to him sexually, and to maintain silence about the abuse. Within days of filing the complaint, the victim's mother had a change of heart. Henceforth, and through the date of the hearing, she impeded the investigation by actively discouraging her daughter from cooperating with investigators. Dieguez was nevertheless questioned under oath about the abuse allegations by duly-authorized investigating officers. He denied any improper conduct towards the victim. In May 2001, three documents matching the victim's description of the "contracts" were found in the trunk of Sweetwater police vehicle number 953. Specifically, the documents were located underneath a lining attached to the spare tire compartment. Vehicle number 953 had previously been assigned to Dieguez. The handwriting on the documents was matched to Dieguez. The "contracts," which were admitted into evidence without objection, speak loudly regarding the improper nature of Dieguez' relationship to the victim. At the time of the final hearing, the victim, then 19, testified in support of Dieguez, claiming that she had lied to investigators, and to friends, about having been abused by him. By the time of the hearing, the victim had, as one of the investigating officers put it, "flipped twice" as to whether she had in fact been abused by Dieguez. The victim was accompanied to the hearing by an attorney, who entered an appearance on her behalf but made no motions. The victim's mother was also present with Respondent. The trier-of-fact carefully observed the young woman's demeanor under oath and has no hesitation in saying that her purported denial of abuse served instead to corroborate the "contracts" in which Dieguez documents the true and improper nature of his conduct toward the victim. The victim was plainly in distress as she gave her testimony. She claimed, unpersuasively, not to remember details of her allegations, nor of the investigation itself. She claimed not to have spoken with her mother about her allegations against Dieguez at any time after February 15, 2001. In fact, she denied speaking to anybody about the allegations, including the attorney who was present on her behalf. Under all the circumstances, the "contacts" in Dieguez' handwriting affirmatively and compellingly demonstrate the unreliability of the victim’s in court denial of abuse. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that officers who lack good moral character may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. Making a false statement under oath is an independent ground upon which a law enforcement officer's license may be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dieguez's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 12th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teri Guttman Valdez, Esquire 1550 Madruga Avenue, Suite 323 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Morales had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Morales has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Alfonso Morales, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On October 12, 1990, Petitioner got in a fight with his live-in girlfriend. Petitioner had been drinking. Petitioner was arrested for hitting the girlfriend and putting her in a "headlock" when she was two months pregnant with his child. He told the police at the time that he did not know she was pregnant; and at formal hearing herein, he denied that she was pregnant at the time of the incident. Petitioner was charged with the felony of "aggravated battery". The public defender was appointed to represent him. Petitioner could not make bail; therefore, he served 17 days in jail. At his first appearance in court, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor "battery" under Section 784.03 F.S., no subsection specified, and was released for time served. At formal hearing herein, Petitioner asserted that he had pled guilty solely to avoid further incarceration until a later trial date, which might have caused him to lose his job. On October 27, 1992, Petitioner was living with the same woman, whom he has referred to at least once as his "wife", and her one-year-old child. It is not clear from the record whether this woman's child was the result of her alleged pregnancy in 1990. It is also not clear whether Petitioner acknowledges this child to be his. There is no evidence that this woman ever lost an unborn child. On that date, Petitioner was arrested again for hitting the woman. He had been drinking prior to his arrest. He gave no details at formal hearing herein as to what events lead up to his arrest for hitting the woman, except to say that the victim/girlfriend/wife reached the police station before he and the arresting officers did and that she withdrew the felony charges before he was booked. Therefore, on October 27, 1992, Petitioner was charged only with "misdemeanor battery/domestic violence" on the word of the police officers and the one-year-old child. Petitioner claimed that the child was not in the house at the time of his altercation with the victim. The public defender was again appointed to represent Petitioner. Petitioner could not make bail; therefore, he served 28 days in jail. When his case was called, he pled guilty to "misdemeanor battery/domestic violence" under Section 784.03(1)(a) F.S. At formal hearing herein, Petitioner asserted that he had pled guilty solely to avoid further incarceration until a later trial date, which might have caused him to lose his job. He was released for time served. Petitioner and his present wife have been married approximately three years, since April, 1993. The wife has been involved in day-care for approximately eight years. This case arises because the Respondent has issued a letter to Petitioner's present wife threatening her with a fine or criminal penalties if she allows Petitioner to have direct contact with any children in her family day-care home. Petitioner's present wife trusts Petitioner around her own child and other children. In her opinion, he has no "strong attitude," that is, he evidences no aggressive or intimidating nature or behavior and is a good husband and father. Petitioner has undertaken the care and support of his infirm mother-in- law in the marital home and has behaved toward her in a very loving way. Since marrying his present wife, Petitioner has regularly attended church. Petitioner has not formally dealt with any alcohol problems or undergone therapy of any kind. Without objection, Petitioner presented nine written, but very general, testimonials to his honesty and "niceness" written by neighbors, co- workers, and supervisors. This same general pleasantness and integrity was testified to by his present wife and a long-time friend and neighbor, Dorothy Powell. Petitioner has been employed with the same employer since 1989. In January 1995, he earned a service award from this employer. By all accounts, he is an excellent employee and co-worker. Petitioner is not employed in a position of special trust and does not intend to be so employed.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order expunging its report of Petitioner's 1990 and 1992 misdemeanors, or alternatively, grant him an exemption to work in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 15th day of April, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: W. D. 2263 Bradford Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 4 Legal Office 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Gregory D. Venz, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Roberto Mera (Mera), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Mera. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Mera had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Mera and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Mera filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Mera denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Mera on April 16, 1987, at which time he divulged that he had used marijuana one time in 1977, that he had used cocaine one time in 1982, and that he had purchased a stolen VCR for $100 in 1982. While the used VCR he purchased was apparently stolen property, Mera did not know such fact when he purchased it, and turned it over to the police when they advised him it was stolen property. Other than heretofore noted, Mera has never used marijuana or cocaine. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Mera's background, that Mera possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidents. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Mera, born August 20, 1963, used marijuana one time 12 years ago when he was 14-15 years of age, and cocaine one time 7 years ago when he was 19 years of age. At no time did he knowingly purchase stolen property. Such isolated and dated usage of marijuana and cocaine can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Mera has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Mera has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Roberto Mera, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an act of violence or used force on any person except in the lawful protection of one's self or another from physical harm and, therefore, should have his license renewal as a Class "D" Security Officer denied pursuant to Section 493.6118(1)(j) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Michael S. Snow, was at all times relevant to these proceedings a licensed Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent is the agency that licenses and regulates security officers pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On or about April 12, 2003, the Petitioner filed an application to renew his license as a Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent advised the Petitioner by letter of its intent to deny his application; the Petitioner requested a hearing; and these proceedings ensued. Subsequently, the Respondent amended its letter of denial, and the letter of August 14, 2003, (Second Amended Administrative Denial of License), constitutes the charging document. That letter states that the application is denied because of the applicant's failure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, because the applicant committed an act of violence or used force on another person that was not for the lawful protection of himself or another. At the hearing, Union County Deputy Sheriff Terry Cranford was called to testify. Deputy Cranford identified an affidavit that he had prepared on November 24, 2002, in relation to an investigation in which the Petitioner was the alleged perpetrator of abuse of an 18-month old child. The affidavit, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1, was prepared by the deputy after he had interviewed various witnesses in the case; however, the deputy did not observe any of the alleged conduct. The deputy did observe the child on November 22, 2002, during the course of his investigation. The alleged incident, which involved the Petitioner striking the child in the face, took place on November 21, 2002, some 24 hours earlier. The deputy did not mention in his affidavit any injuries he observed. The deputy did not testify at hearing to any injuries to the child. The deputy stated that the child was too young to provide any information on the incident. The deputy's investigative focus at the time he prepared the affidavit was on the mother of the child and another relative. He did not interview the Petitioner. All the information that he obtained about the Petitioner's involvement was through the Child Protective Investigator, Ms. Joiner. The Respondent called Janice Joiner, an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who testified regarding her investigation of the incident. Like the deputy, above, Ms Joiner did not observe the incident. It is clear from her testimony and that of the child's mother, that the child's natural father reported the incident. He picked up the child from the daycare on the afternoon of November 21, 2002, and raised questions about the red handprint on the child's face. As a result of the investigation, DCFS initiated a dependency action, which precluded with the right of the child's mother to have custody of the child during the investigation, legal proceedings, and subsequent mediation between attorneys representing the child's mother and father. As a result of the investigation initiated by the child's father, his ex-wife, the child's mother, had to agree to end her relationship with the Petitioner. Ms. Joiner testified regarding what the Petitioner told her. He admitted he struck the child while putting the child in his car seat, when the child grabbed his uniform epaulet and would not let go. Ms. Joiner opined that this was abusive, and stated that the doctor who examined the child said it was abusive. Ms. Joiner did not state upon what information she based this opinion. She mentioned the handprint she saw on the day following the incident, which she described as faint. The Petitioner entered pretrial intervention on the charges brought against him, and successfully completed the program which called for him, to among other things, attend parenting and anger management classes. He was never tried; has never plead or been found guilt of any offense related to this incident; and his civil rights were never affected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue the Petitioner a Class D Security Officer's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael S. Snow Post Office Box 1131 MacClenny, Florida 32063 Michael T. McGuckin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing Post Office Box 6687 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Kenneth Hart (Hart), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hart. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hart had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hart and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hart filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hart denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hart on May 22, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Hart used marijuana on approximately three occasions and cocaine on approximately three occasions, that such use was sporadic and infrequent, and that such use occurred more than two years prior to the interview. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hart's background, that Hart possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his infrequent and sporadic use of marijuana over 5 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hart, born February 15, 1962, used marijuana and cocaine approximately three times over 5 years ago when he was 21-22 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Hart has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hart has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Kenneth Hart, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June, 1989.
