The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be terminated from employment with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Mr. Davis was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. He had been employed by the Sheriff's Office for 11 years. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was assigned to work a post in the healthcare facility of the Pinellas County jail, beginning at 7:00 a.m. This facility houses inmates who have medical problems. The inmates are placed in pods, and the pods are monitored by using direct supervision, meaning a deputy is stationed inside the pod with the inmates and is able to directly monitor and interact with the inmates. Additionally, the deputy supervising the inmates is able to summon medical assistance within the building for the inmates. On July 26, 2010, Inmate Kyle Howard (Mr. Howard) was housed in the pod that Mr. Davis was supervising. On that same day, Mr. Howard came to Mr. Davis and told Mr. Davis that he was ill. Sometime during the day, two inmates came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was sick and throwing up a lot. Standing about 30 feet away from Mr. Howard, Mr. Davis witnessed Mr. Howard "over the toilet in a vomiting mode." Around 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2010, the nurse, who gave medications to the inmates, gave Mr. Howard a suppository for the nausea. Sometime between 3:08 p.m. and 3:47 p.m., an inmate came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was not responsive. Mr. Davis went to Mr. Howard's cell, discovered that Mr. Howard was not responsive, and called for emergency medical assistance. Mr. Howard was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. One of the responsibilities of Mr. Davis was to interact with inmates to determine what problems may exist and to summon medical assistance if necessary. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis did not attempt to speak to Mr. Howard to determine what was wrong with him and did not call for medical assistance until Mr. Howard was found unresponsive. Mr. Davis was required to check on the inmates in the pod every 30 minutes to monitor the wellness and security of the inmates in the pod. Mr. Davis is required to check each cell and inmate during these checks. After each 30-minute check, Mr. Davis is required to record on a Daily Log Report that he performed the check. The Daily Log Reports are part of the official records of the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Davis admitted that he did not make a complete check every 30 minutes as he was required to do. He walked part of the way down the hall and observed some but not all the inmates. He entered in the Daily Log Report that he had made the checks as required. During some of Mr. Davis's shift on July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was playing Hearts on the computer and was checking Yahoo and MSN. Prior to the incident at issue, Mr. Davis had been disciplined two times for inappropriate use of computers while on duty. Mr. Davis has admitted that he committed the violations that are charged, but contends that he should be suspended rather than terminated from his employment. The Sheriff Office's General Order 10-2 sets forth the guidelines to be used in the application of discipline. The range of penalties is based on the severity of the violation, from Level One, which is the least severe, to Level Five, which is the most severe. Failing to monitor Mr. Howard and to call for medical assistance for Mr. Howard are severe violations and are Level Five violations. Failing to accurately record his 30-minute checks, because he was not checking each of the inmates during his rounds, is also a severe violation and is a Level Five violation. General Order 10-2 provides that two Level Five violations are assigned 60 points. The disciplinary range for 60 points is a seven-day suspension to termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Mr. Davis's employment with the Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Jimmie Davis 2086 Pine Ridge Drive Clearwater, Florida 33763 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the disciplinary action taken against Wayne Andrews on the grounds stated in the disciplinary letter dated November 9, 1976, was for good cause. The grounds stated in that letter were negligence on the part of Andrews by allowing three (3) patients to escape from the South Florida State Hospital. At hearing the specific negligent act involved was clarified by counsel for the agency as Andrews having left the steel door between the cell area vestibule and the Nurses Station, thereby permitting the escape of three (3) patients from South Florida State Hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and mitigating factors, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Career Service Commission not sustain the action of the agency because the failure to adhere to the procedures was at worst a technical violation which did not contribute to the escape. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Mr. Wayne Andrews 1681 Northest 158th Street North Miami, Florida 33162 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
The Issue Whether cause exists to suspend Respondent for 60 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 below1/: Bob Gualtieri is the duly-appointed sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida. Sheriff Gualtieri is in command of the operations of the PCSO and is responsible for providing law enforcement and corrections services within Pinellas County, Florida. Sheriff Gualtieri is authorized to impose discipline in accordance with the Civil Service Act, upon PCSO members/employees who are found to have violated rules or regulations of the PCSO. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by the PCSO as a Deputy Sheriff. As a Deputy Sheriff, Respondent was charged with the responsibility of complying with all applicable state laws and PCSO rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures. Respondent is familiar with the General Orders and standard operating procedures with respect to the PCSO generally, and in detention and corrections specifically. Respondent has been employed by the PCSO for approximately 24 years. Respondent has been employed as a deputy with the Detention and Corrections Bureau approximately nine years. [Lt.] Darrell Spiva is assigned to the Administrative Investigations Division of the PCSO. [Lt.] Spiva investigated concerns raised by Respondent's supervisors arising from a Christmas party that Respondent had for inmates who were under her supervision at the jail. In the Correction and Detention Bureau of the PCSO, Respondent's primary function is to ensure the care, custody and control of inmates. Respondent's specific responsibility is to supervise the inmates in the area of the jail where Respondent is assigned during a particular shift. As part of Respondent's job duties in her assignment as a deputy, Respondent is required to conduct well-being checks every 30 minutes, at a minimum, on each inmate in Respondent's assigned area. Respondent is required to document the completion of the well-being checks. Completion of the well-being checks is required to be documented in the official records of the PCSO using the jail's inmate management system. The inmate management software is commonly referred to as "JIMS." Respondent is familiar with a memorandum issued on April 11, 2011 (Memorandum), by Sheriff's Gualtieri's predecessor, Sheriff Coats, directed to all detention and corrections personnel regarding proper care, custody, and control of inmates. The subject line of the Memorandum reads, "automatic 30 day suspension without pay." The Memorandum was understood by Respondent to emphasize that in order to carry out the PCSO's legal and ethical responsibilities, it is imperative that deputies check on inmates. Deputies are to check on inmates in accordance with accreditation standards and requirements of the General Orders of the Sheriff. The Memorandum explained that there had been a pattern of violations by deputies not completing the required checks. The Memorandum indicated that deputies had not been completing the required well-being checks and then falsifying records to reflect they had completed the checks. According to the Memorandum, a new minimum penalty of 30-days unpaid suspension would be imposed for future violations. According to the Memorandum, the new minimum penalty was to be effective on April 11, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Respondent was assigned to supervise an area within the jail's central division designated "Pod 4C4." Pod 4C4 contained 16 cells on two levels around a common area on the lower level. During Respondent's shift, Pod 4C4 contained somewhere between 48 to 60 female inmates. The pod is designed to be managed by the direct supervision of a single deputy. The deputy is stationed at a work area within the pod. The work area is located in the front of the pod on the lower level. A person standing on the lower level of the pod cannot see into all the cells on the upper and lower level without moving up to the upper level and walking throughout the pod. There are certain recessed areas--vestibules, bathrooms, etc.--that are not entirely visible unless a deputy walks around the pod. It would not be a complete well-being check if Respondent did not go to the upper level of the pod. It takes somewhere under five minutes for a deputy, if not interrupted, to make the walk that constitutes a well-being check. On Respondent's overnight shift, which would have been from 6:00 p.m. on December 22, 2011, to 6:00 a.m. on December 23, 2011, Respondent made computer entries to indicate that she had performed well-being checks at certain times. JIMS records indicate that Respondent made well-being checks on the days in question at 1837 hours, 2054 hours, 2123, 2151, 2225, 2246, 0024, 0049, 0118, 0147 and 0218 hours. Pursuant to the Sheriff's General Orders the Administrative Review Board (ARB) met, reviewed the disciplinary file, questioned the Respondent, gave the Respondent an opportunity to make a statement and subsequently determined that based on the preponderance of the evidence, Respondent had violated the Sheriff's rules. General Order 10-2 covers disciplines and ranks certain offenses. General Order 10-2 ranks offenses from Level 1 to Level 5. Level 1 offenses are the least severe, and Level 5 offenses are the most severe. The General Orders set forth a procedure for assigning points for each sustained violation. According to the number of points, there is a corresponding table that indicates the range of punishment. The ranking of certain offenses, the procedure for assigning points for each sustained violation and the range of punishment are all set by the General Orders. The point total for the two sustained violations found by the ARB in Respondent's case is 60. The discipline range for a violation resulting in 60 disciplinary points is from a minimum of a seven-day suspension up to, and including, termination. Sheriff Gualtieri imposed a suspension of 30 days, or 240 hours, without pay against Respondent. The imposed suspension of 30 days, or 240 hours, without pay is the penalty provided for as a minimum in the Memorandum. Respondent did not make any correcting entries to document that well-being checks she intended to complete were never made. If Respondent made entries in the Sheriff's official records that well-being checks were performed and the well-being checks were not made, these recorded entries are false. Although the JIMS system indicated that Respondent made well-being checks at the times set forth in paragraph 34 above, video surveillance confirmed that Respondent did not actually make several of the well-being checks as indicated. Respondent admits that she logged each of the 11 entries into JIMS and that she failed to conduct well-being checks for the times entered at 2123, 2225, 0049, 0118, 0218 and 0244 hours. According to Respondent, the established practice in Pod 4C4 is to note in JIMS that a particular well-being check was done prior to actually conducting the check. Following this practice, Respondent should have conducted the well-being checks within a reasonable time after entering the times into JIMS; but she did not. Because Respondent failed to conduct the well-being checks as required, this failure resulted in the JIMS entries being false. Respondent asserts that she was distracted during the times in question because she was thinking about Christmas and her mom's 95th birthday. Respondent assertion of being distracted is not credible. If Respondent was able to repress her distracting thoughts long enough to make six entries in JIMS attesting to well-being checks that she intended to do, then she should have also been able to curb those same distracting thoughts long enough to actually conduct the required well-being checks. Respondent admits that there was no emergency or disturbance among the inmates that physically impeded here ability to complete the required checks, and in the absence of such circumstances, Respondent should have completed each of the checks. Respondent intentionally failed to conduct the well- being checks at issue, and she knowingly caused false entries to be made in the JIMS tracking system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Dolores Taylor, violated General Order 3-1.1, Rules and Regulations 5.4 and 5.14(c), and suspending Respondent for a period of 30 days (240 hours) without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 10th day of September, 2012.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a corrections officer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent was certified as a corrections officer under Certificate No. 502-5580. The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the agency in this state responsible for the certification and regulation of the conduct corrections and law enforcement officers in Florida. On June 24, 1992, at approximately 11:45 PM, Officer Bryant K. Doyle, a four and a half year veteran of the Orlando Police Department, came across Respondent sitting in his car in a warehouse district near the 400 block of West Grant Street in Orlando. He called for backup by another unit, but before that unit arrived, the Respondent's vehicle, in which Respondent was accompanied a female, came toward him. Doyle stopped and approached the vehicle and at that time recognized Respondent from a prior contact which had occurred several months earlier. At that time, Doyle had come across Respondent in a car late at night in the same general area, again accompanied by a female. At that time, Respondent claimed he was a janitor but also showed Doyle a corrections officer certification card. On the second occasion, because Respondent had no identification with him, Doyle ran a routine identification check and found no prior arrest record. Though he did not know the person with Respondent, he claims Respondent implied she was a prostitute. She has an arrest record in Orange County, Florida but no evidence was produced as to what the arrests were for. Doyle asked the woman to step out of the car and, taking her behind the car, questioned her. Doyle claims she indicated Respondent had picked her up and had paid her $10.00 to fondle herself. She identified herself as Ms. McKie, who resided on Michael Avenue in Orlando. Doyle contends the interview of Ms. McKie lasted for four or five minutes. Officer Doyle then called in the information he had received from Ms. McKie and placed Respondent under arrest for solicitation of prostitution. On each occasion, at the scene, according to Doyle, Respondent cried and said he was sorry, but at no time did he deny her version of the story. There is no evidence, however, that he was made aware of it. Petitioner was unable to present the testimony of Ms. McKie. A subpoena issued to procure her presence at the hearing could not be served on her because the address given for her turned out to be a vacant lot. Ms. McKie had not been deposed previously, and, therefore, her testimony was not available. Respondent, testifying in his own behalf, indicated on the first incident described by Doyle, he had been visiting his brother, who resides in a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sponsored group home for the mentally disabled, the Golden Age Retirement Home, in the general area near where he was stopped by Doyle. Respondent is his brother's guardian, and on the night of that first alleged incident, had been visiting him somewhat late in the evening. During that visit, his brother introduced him to his girlfriend, whom he identified as Ms. McKay, and asked Respondent to take her to the store to pick up some items for him. After leaving the local convenience store where she purchased some snack items, on the way back she got sick and Respondent pulled over to the side of the road to allow her to relieve herself. While he was sitting there, with the auto engine running, Doyle arrived and directed him to get out of the car. When he complied, Doyle questioned him and in response, Respondent indicated he was a janitor and a corrections officer. At this time, he claims, Doyle accused him of prostitution, though Respondent denied it. Though he did not arrest Respondent, Doyle allegedly told him at that time to stay out of the area in the future even though Respondent claimed to have a lot of relatives living there. Throughout this interview, Respondent claims, Doyle was hostile and threatening. On June 24, 1992, Respondent, who was working the 6:30 AM to 2:30 PM shift, again visited his brother late in the evening. His visit was late because, after getting off work, he had to have some car repair work done and then took his wife to dinner. By the time they got back and he was ready to go, it was after 10:00 PM. However, because, he had to get his brother to sign some papers for the Social Security Administration, he decided to go even though it was late, and since his wife did not care to accompany him, he went by himself. On the way there, he saw a female walking on the street whom he recognized as a woman named Sally (McKie). He had known her for several years as a friend of his sister, but no idea she had an arrest record as a prostitute. Ms. McKie apparently walked out in front of his car and he stopped. He told her he was going to visit his brother, but if her destination was anywhere near his, he would give her a ride. She accepted. On the way, Ms. McKie indicated she was having some problems and began to get upset. She directed him into the warehouse area as a shortcut, but, for some reason, he claimed instinct, Respondent decided not to take it, turned around, and went back the way he had come. As he did so, however, he met Officer Doyle who stopped him and asked him for his driver's license which he did not have with him. According to Respondent, Doyle had Ms. McKie get out of the car and go with him to the rear where, for a period which Respondent estimates as approximately thirty minutes he allegedly threatened her with arrest if she did not admit she was engaged in prostitution at Respondent's solicitation. Respondent admits he did not hear the entire conversation and did not observe Doyle in his relationship with Ms. McKie, but he recalls the nature of the conversation. After speaking with McKie, Doyle came back to Respondent, had him get out of the car, and arrested him. Respondent was not prosecuted on the charge for which he was arrested. A Nol Prosequi Order dated October 13, 1992 so indicates. Even though Respondent notified his agency of his arrest, no action was taken against him by his supervisors. His appraisal report, dated June, 1993, for the preceding year which included the time of the incident in question reflects he exceeded standards, receiving 38 out of a possible 44 rating points. In that report he is described as an individual who can be depended upon to get the job done; who takes the initiative to insure those working for him have the requisite tools to do their job; accepts additional duties and puts every effort into accomplishing a task; works well with others; and can be depended upon to be there when needed. His three prior performance appraisal records, covering the period from January, 1989 through January, 1992, also reflect ratings of either "exceeds standards" or "outstanding." Respondent's supervisor, Sergeant Lacienski, and a fellow corrections officer and sometime subordinate, Officer Charette, both indicate Respondent has a good record and reputation within the corrections community for truth and veracity. According to Lacienski, even though Respondent's arrest was known within the correctional community, no one indicated any reluctance to work with him for that reason. This opinion is shared by Officer Charette, who asserts that Respondent's arrest for this incident had no effect on his work, and his effectiveness has not been diminished. Respondent has worked with the Orange County Department of Corrections for more than eleven years, achieving the rank of corporal. While serving as a corrections officer over that period, he has, at various times, held various part time jobs such as security officer, psychic technician, nurse's aide, and, for a period, janitor with Duncan Janitorial Service. He has never received any type of disciplinary action during his corrections career.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, John H. Girtman. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 13th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3299 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as hearsay evidence not properly corroborated by other admissible evidence of record. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted. 7. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. & 17. Accepted. 18. & 19. Accepted. Accepted. & 22. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven O. Brady, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement 400 West Robinson Street, N-209 Orlando, Florida 32801 Joan Stewart, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6, concerning inmate canteen coupon books, is an "unpromulgated rule" within the meaning of Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, rendering it an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are prisoners Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, a prison operated by the Department the agency responsible for the state prison system. The parties stipulated that petitioners are Substantially affected by the challenged Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6. Petitioners, who initially challenged several operating procedures and directives, have confined their attack to Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6. This Operating Procedure, issued February 16, 1962, and revised October 2, 1981, Is titled "Inmate Canteen Coupon Books" and issued over the signature of the Superintendent of Union Correctional Institution. As authority for its issuance, two policy and procedural directives are referenced, neither of which is in evidence. The stated purpose of this Operating Procedure is: To establish the approved medium of exchange for inmates assigned to Union Correctional Institution; To establish procedures for obtaining coupon books for use in the Canteen System; To place responsibility for distributing and accounting for Canteen coupons; To place limitations upon inmates use of coupon books; To establish procedures for redemption of coupon books; and To identify disciplinary action relative to misuse of coupon books. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) Paragraph 81-6.3A expresses the main policy of the Operating Procedure: A. Canteen coupon books shall be the approved medium of exchange for inmates at Union Correctional Institution. Currency, coins or other negotiable instruments in the possession of an inmate are contraband. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) This Operating Procedure announces and purports to set Department policy for Union Correctional Institution. Canteen coupon books are declared to be the only approved medium of exchange for inmates. Currency, coins or other negotiable instruments in the possession of inmates are declared contraband. All currency, coins or negotiable instruments are removed from new inmates and credited to their individual trust accounts. Thereafter, inmates may draw up to $20.00 per week from their trust accounts, but only in the form of coupon books. Coupons may be redeemed in the canteen system but loose coupons will not be accepted. Inmates may not possess more than $25.00 worth of coupons--any excess is declared contraband. This Operating procedure also includes details regarding coupon books, coupon distribution, and coupon redemption. Finally, inmates are warned that failure to comply with the Operating Procedure may constitute a violation of institutional rules for which, presumably, sanctions may be imposed. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) This written Operating Procedure applies to all inmates at Union Correctional Institution. It applies prospectively, and dictates the medium of exchange for inmates at the institution. It purports, in and of itself, to create rights and affect others; it is virtually self-executing, no exceptions or discretion in implementation is allowed. By its tone and language, it speaks with the force of a rule of law. The Department concedes that this operating procedure has never been adopted as a rule in accordance with the rulemaking procedures of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Rachel Bookman, is a woman within a protected class as defined within Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Sometime prior to February 26, 1993, Petitioner discovered that Gulf Correctional Institution (GCI) was hiring correctional personnel to work at the facility. GCI was a new correctional facility and had recently opened the year before. At the time, GCI was progressively filling its facilities and dormitories as those facilities and dormitories were completed and opened to receive inmates. Petitioner was then employed at the Bay County Jail which was being operated by a private corrections company. Petitioner was having some unspecified difficulty with her Bay County employer related to a work related back injury. She was interested in employment as a correctional officer at GCI and had a friend who knew the Chief of Security, Major Sermons, deliver an application to him for submission to the personnel department. Petitioner was called for an interview before a three-person committee, consisting of Major Sermons, the personnel director, Jerry Keel, and one other supervisory officer. Petitioner was found to be qualified for a post at GCI and the committee unanimously recommended that she be hired as a Correctional Officer I. Neither before, during or after the committee's deliberations was there any opposition from any committee member concerning Petitioner's employment. The committee's recommendation for employment of Petitioner was accepted by GCI's Superintendent, Ronald McAndrews, and Petitioner was hired as a Correctional Officer I at GCI on February 26, 1993. Petitioner was hired to be a dormitory officer. However, the dormitory in which she was hired to work was still under construction when she began employment. As a result, Petitioner was initially assigned to work in the control room during the day shift until such time as the new dormitories were completed. The day shift generally had weekends off. Because of the fluctuations in the correctional facilities needs, Petitioner, as well as other new employees, signed a willingness to work statement agreeing to work any post assignment and any shift assignment at the correctional facility. There was absolutely no evidence which demonstrated that Major Sermons placed or requested that Petitioner be placed in the control room or on the day shift. In fact the evidence demonstrated that another administrative Lieutenant made the quarterly post assignments once the lieutenant received the names of the employees. Major Sermons signed off on those postings. Variations from the quarterly assignment schedule were assigned by the shift lieutenants or Officer in Charge (OIC). Again Major Sermons signed off on the daily changes. The evidence did not demonstrate that Major Sermons requested any assignment for Petitioner. During Petitioner's first week of employment, she underwent forty hours of new hire training including a two hour training session on sexual harassment. Petitioner also received a copy of the Department's policy and procedures on sexual harassment. The Department's policy states that sexual harassment is strictly prohibited. The policy declares that anyone who feels sexually harassed should tell the person to stop immediately. If the undesired activity persists, the policy states that the situation is to be reported to the personnel manager. As indicated, after training, Petitioner was assigned to work in the control room under a female supervisor, Sergeant Ima Millender. Departmental policy requires a critical complement of staff be on hand to operate a prison facility. The control room was required to have a minimum of two officers present at all times. Often more than two officers would be assigned to the control room, depending on the work requirements. Control room officers are responsible for maintaining a log of the activities occurring in the prison, people going in, out and around the prison and inmate activity. The control room is the heart of a prison and serves as the center of a prison's operation. The security gates are controlled from the control room and inmate counts are reported to the control room. Because of the central nature of the control room to a prison's routine, the control room is a good place to train new personnel in the operation of a correctional facility. Therefore it was not unusual for Petitioner, or any new hire to be placed in the control room for training. In the beginning, Petitioner competently performed her control room duties and was complimented by Superintendent Ron McAndrew on her excellent phone manners. Later, however, problems began to surface. From mid-March to late-April 1993, Petitioner had several conflicts with Sergeant Millender. On one occasion, Sergeant Millender instructed Petitioner to add a late entry to the control room log to include information that had been omitted by another employee. Petitioner refused to comply with Sergeant Millender's instructions insisting that the omission was not her fault and that she should not have to correct the omission. Eventually, Sergeant Millender typed the entry herself. On another occasion after being instructed by Sergeant Millender that the overhead lights in the control room were to remain off, Petitioner went to the light switch and turned the overhead lights on. The lights were turned off in the morning so that the control room personnel could see I.D.'s being held up to the window for a persons admission to and from the facility. The interior reflection when the lights were on prevented the control room personnel from adequately seeing such I.D.s. Petitioner insisted that the lights be turned on so that she could see her typing. However, Petitioner was not typing at the time and would not begin typing until later. Sergeant Millender told Petitioner her typing could wait until after the morning shift came on duty. On several occasions, Petitioner exited the control room without seeking the approval of her supervisor. Other times she would receive permission to leave the control room momentarily to retrieve a document and would not return for an extended period of time. During those times she would sometimes have to be found and told to return to her duties. Superintendent McAndrew often saw Petitioner wandering outside of the control room and on the prison compound grounds where she was not supposed to be. At other times Petitioner would chit-chat at the control room window and have to be instructed to return to her duties. On the other hand, Petitioner did not care for Sergeant Millender and accused her of not properly training her for the control room, not operating the control room in a professional manner and of treating her unfairly. Petitioner, also complained of Sergeant Millender carrying on conversations in the control room of a personal nature with occasional discussions of sex. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner was shorted on her training or treated unfairly by Sergeant Millender. The evidence did demonstrate that Sergeant Millender operated the control room in a professional and efficient manner. The evidence did not demonstrate that these very casual conversations were in any way harassing or created a hostile work environment. On one occasion, Sergeant Millender refused to allow Petitioner to exit the control room until proper relief arrived. When Petitioner was prevented from exiting she became distraught and cried. Eventually, Sergeant Millender was instructed by her supervisor to allow Petitioner to exit the control room. In mid to late April 1993, the problems in the control room came to a head. The problems were brought to the attention of Petitioner's supervisors and a meeting was held between Petitioner, Sergeant Millender, Lieutenant Able Price and Major Horace Sermon to discuss various problems in the control room and try to clear the air. Additionally, Sergeant Millender was told not to discuss personal matters while on the job. Sergeant Millender complied with her instructions. In late April 1993, dormitory construction was completed and Petitioner was reassigned as a dormitory officer. Petitioner went to Superintendent McAndrew and protested her transfer. Petitioner cried while explaining that she did not want to transfer out of the control room because she did not want to work around inmates. Superintendent McAndrew told Petitioner that she would have to accept her post assignment as it was the position for which she was hired. On May 2, 1993, Lieutenant Able Price received a complaint from Sergeant Anderson that Petitioner had been rude and uncooperative over the telephone. The incident occurred when Sergeant Anderson called the dormitory where Petitioner worked. The purpose of the call was to check on the dormitory since there was no experienced sergeant working with relatively new employees in that dormitory. Petitioner refused to cooperate with the sergeant and told him she did not work for him and hung up. On May 4, 1993 Lieutenant Price received another complaint from Officer Hayes. Officer Hayes stated that Petitioner had hung up on her twice on May 4, 1993 and did not provide her with all the information that Hayes had requested. On May 10, 1993, a meeting was held with Petitioner, Major Sermon, and Lieutenant Price and Personnel Manager Jerry Keel. Petitioner was presented with incident reports from Sergeant Anderson and Officer Hayes regarding her unprofessionalism in responding to phone calls. Petitioner denied ever being rude and stated that the Department had waited too long to bring these problems to her attention. Petitioner did not voice any complaints about sexual harassment. Instead, Petitioner filed an incident report against Lieutenant Price for unfair treatment. Petitioner alleged that she had been experiencing headaches and loss of appetite for approximately a month due to Lieutenant Price's unfair treatment. Petitioner was counseled on the necessity for courteous, cooperative and professional conduct at work. On May 12, 1993, Major Sermon called a meeting with Petitioner, Sharon Davis, Lieutenant Sam Smith, and himself. Major Sermon asked Petitioner if there was any truth to a rumor he heard that she was considering filing sexual harassment charges against him. Petitioner replied that his comments to her could be construed as sexual harassment. Major Sermon informed Petitioner that if she felt sexually harassed by him, she should report it to the Superintendent. Petitioner declined to speak with the Superintendent because she thought it would be useless. Superintendent McAndrew was informed of the difficulties that the staff was having with Petitioner's performance, but was unaware that Petitioner was contemplating filing sexual harassment charges against any member of his staff. On May 19, 1993, due to Petitioner's unsatisfactory performance, Superintendent McAndrew dismissed Petitioner during the probationary period of her employment. On May 25, 1993, Petitioner telephoned David Smith of the Department's Office of the Inspector General and complained of being sexually harassed during her employment at GCI. Even though Petitioner was no longer an employee of the Department, the Inspector General assigned an inspector to investigate the charges. On May 27, 1993, Petitioner completed an affidavit in support of her complaint of sexual harassment. In her affidavit, Petitioner attributed the following incidents as sexual harassment: Around February 26,1993, Major Sermons indicated that the personnel manager was against hiring her and that he had made him angry because he had gone Superintendent McAndrews to hire her. Major Sermons denied making such a statement. The evidence demonstrated the alleged statement was not true. Around March 16, 1993, Major Sermons called her to his office and asked how things were going. He reiterated that he had made the personnel manager mad because he had hired her from Bay County and the personnel manager was friends with the "head guy down at the jail." She told Major Sermons that she appreciated getting the job because the Bay County Jail had said that "they would see to it that I never worked in this state again." Petitioner also alleged that Major Sermons asked if she had filed sexual harassment charges against the jail. She told him no that it was workers' compensation related. Around March 18, 1993, Major Sermons called the control room. Petitioner answered the telephone, "Good morning. Control room. Bookman." Major Sermons indicated that he liked the way she answered the phone. On March 19, 1993, Petitioner attended a womans' day function at the prison wearing an over the knee black, multicolored dress with matching shoes. She went into the security headquarters. Major Sermons saw her and told her she looked like a million dollars and had nice legs. Major Sermons also inquired as to how things were going on the job. Around March 22, 1993, Major Sermons called the control room and complimented her on her phone technique. Major Sermons also indicated that Superintendent McAndrew also thought that she was doing a good job. Major Sermons indicated that she owed him for the job and the shift she was on and that he was proud of her. The evidence showed that the compliments regarding Petitioner's phone technique occurred. However, the evidence did not show that Major Sermons said she owed him. Around March 25, 1993, she related the incident involving her refusal to make a late log entry for the inmate count. Around March 29, 1993, Major Sermons called her to his office to inquire about the log entry incident. Petitioner said she thought Sergeant Millender preferred Ms. Hayes over a newcomer like her. She then complained that she was not being trained properly. Major Sermons indicated that she could move her out and that he would see what he could do. He was head of security and he made the decisions. Major Sermons told Petitioner to cheer up and that she was too pretty for her own good. The evidence did not show that this conversation was sexual or harassing in nature. Around April 12, 1993, Major Sermons called to inquire about her training and was told she didn't know how to run the computer. Major Sermons also visited the control room and asked her to come by his office when she got off. Petitioner complied and stopped by Major Sermons office. He told her to stand so that he could look at her. They talked about Emma Wilson's application. Wilson was a friend of Petitioner. Major Sermons wanted Petitioner to tell Wilson to quit the Bay County Jail so that she could be hired at GCI. Major Sermons also asked how old Petitioner was and requested that she go to an upcoming softball game. Around April 17, 1993, while Petitioner was in his office, Major Sermons told Petitioner that he was seeing a nurse who worked at GCI and asked if she ever went outside her marriage to get her needs satisfied. Petitioner objected to the conversation. Around April 18, 1993, Major Sermons had a conversation with Petitioner regarding Superintendent McAndrews whether her pants were too tight. The conversation occurred because had put out a memo about the appropriate fit for officers clothes. The evidence showed that Petitioner asked Major Sermons about her pants while she and others were in the control room. Major Sermons indicated they were alright. However, later, Petitioner alleged that Major Sermons told Petitioner that he kept trying to "put you and me on the outside together," and asked if she was sure she didn't want to go outside her marriage. Petitioner asked Major Sermons to treat her like Shirley Davis, another employee at GCI. Major Sermons said that he couldn't because Davis was like his daughter and that Petitioner was a real woman. Major Sermons also indicated that his wife was leaving him and that they were not sleeping together. Petitioner told Major Sermons to buy his wife some flowers and not to break up his marriage. Major Sermons' said he was disappointed and that he couldn't sleep at night because she was on his mind. Major Sermons also indicated that he had helped her get the control room job. Emma Wilson's resignation from Bay County Jail was also discussed. Major Sermons denies the conversation. Moreover, the evidence did not show that the details of this conversation occurred. Around the same date, Major Sermons indicated that Petitioner could help solve her problems with Sergeant Millender if she would play by his rules. She refused to "screw her way to the top." Major Sermons said that he would no longer talk to Petitioner unless someone else was present. Major Sermons also denies the sexual attributes of this conversation. After Petitioner was terminated, she was asked to return the uniforms she had been issued and which remained the property of GCI. Eventually, Petitioner was sued for the return of the uniforms. In sworn testimony, Petitioner stated that she had mailed all of the uniforms to GCI and that she no longer had any GCI uniforms in her possession. The statement was shown to be untrue since Petitioner was wearing a GCI jacket and had a GCI hat under the chair from which she was testifying. Clearly, Petitioner's credibility is in doubt and she is not believed in her accounts of private conversations between her and Major Sermons. Additionally, Petitioner did not establish any connection between her termination and the alleged sexual harassment. The evidence was clear that Petitioner did not get along with some of her co-workers and supervisors, was over-emotional, had poor work practices, unprofessional behavior and insubordination. All of the foregoing problems are legitimate reasons to terminate a probationary employee. Superintendent McAndrews was unaware of any sexual harassment complaints Petitioner may have had. Petitioner did not demonstrate that the above reasons were pretextual. Therefore, Petitioner has not established she was the victim of an unlawful employment practice and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 7th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-1458 The facts contained in paragraphs 1 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 3 and 17 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 14, 15 and 16 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact were subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard A. Krause, Esquire 1234 Airport Road, Suite 123 Destin, FL 32451 Sharon Moultry Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner falsified information on his application.
Findings Of Fact Michael James Quinn made application to the Department of State for licensure as an unarmed security guard in February of 1981, and for licensure as an armed security guard in May 1981. Quinn answered "no" to Question #13 on the applications, "Have you ever been arrested?" Quinn admitted, and his FBI record also revealed, that he was arrested on July 9, 1975, for possession of cocaine, sale of cocaine, possession of marijuana and aggravated assault. Quinn admitted, and his FBI record also revealed, that all of the charges were dismissed except that for possession of cocaine, to which adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on five years' probation. Quinn was advised by his attorney and his probation officers that upon satisfactory completion of his probation his record would be expunged. Quinn satisfactorily completed his five years' probation. Quinn was just over 18 years of age when he was arrested. During probation Quinn satisfactorily completed four years of college and received a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice. Quinn included with his initial application the affidavit of Lola A. Alston to his good character. Alston was Quinn's last probation officer. Quinn has had no arrests since July 9, 1975.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's applications for unarmed and armed guard licenses be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Michael J. Quinn 4601 Northwest Second Avenue, #801 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Facts found by stipulation. Tangela Dorsett is certified by the Commission as a correctional officer for the Broward County Sheriff's Office. Ms. Dorsett's aunt, Vernell Williams, is deceased. Ms. Dorsett shopped at the Eckerd's Drug Store located at 17811 Biscayne Boulevard in Dade County, Florida, (Eckerd Store) on May 5, 1989. Findings of Facts based upon the hearing. Vernell Williams was a cashier employed at the Eckerd store on Friday, May 5, 1989. Ms. Dorsett went to that store with her 5-year-old daughter that day. Carol Videlman and Anne Moore, plainclothes security officers for the Eckerd store, observed Ms. Dorsett in the store that day. Both Videlman and Moore saw Ms. Dorsett with Vernell Williams in an aisle of the store. Ms. Dorsett was carrying a blue shopping basket with several items in it, and had paid for a prescription in the rear of the store. The security officers saw Ms. Dorsett approach the check out station of Vernell Williams, who motioned to Ms. Dorsett to back off when she noticed that the security officers were watching. Williams took the blue basket with Ms. Dorsett's items and placed them on the floor by the counter, and Ms. Dorsett left the store. This aroused the suspicion of the security officers. About 20 minutes later, Ms. Dorsett came back to the store. She was observed by the same security officers and by their supervisor, Raymond Rodas. She dropped off a roll of film and paid for a box of laundry detergent at Vernell Williams' register. Vernell Williams gave her a receipt for the detergent but also bagged and gave her the items Ms. Dorsett had dropped of at her first visit to the store. Ms. Dorsett did not pay for those items. Ms. Dorsett left the store with two bags in her arms. Mr. Rodas stopped her outside the store and asked her for her receipt. Ms. Dorsett did produce a receipt for a prescription purchase, but no receipt for the other merchandise which she had, which included aspirin, Tylenol, cosmetic items, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, laundry detergent and a kiddie pool. She was unable to locate the receipt for the detergent because it had been folded up in the bills she had received as change. The merchandise had a value of between 50 and 90 dollars. Rodas saw the badge of Ms. Dorsett while she was looking for her receipt in her purse. Ms. Dorsett had originally agreed to follow Rodas back into the store, and she identified Vernell Williams as the employee who rang up her purchases. As Rodas was checking Williams' register detail tape for proof of payment for the purchases, Ms. Dorsett took her bags and exited because she had an appointment to have her hair done, and Mr. Rodas was taking too long. Mr. Rodas followed, and called to her but she did not respond. He was able to take down her auto tag number. Vernell Williams admitted to Rodas that she had assisted Ms. Dorsett in a bagging the items for her without ringing them up. She made a similar statement to investigators of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Commission Exhibit 2. Mr. Rodas reported the matter to the Dade County Sheriff. It was investigated soon thereafter by the Internal Affairs office of the Broward County Sheriff's Office. After that investigation, Ms. Dorsett was suspended without pay on May 15, 1989, and was dismissed from employment on July 13, 1989. The matter led to prosecution of Ms. Dorsett in the County Court for Dade County, State v. Dorsett, Case 89-66938. In a non-jury proceeding held on July 31, 1989, she was found not guilty by the County Judge. Ms. Dorsett maintains that she had presented two register receipts at the County Court proceeding which led to the dismissal of the charges, but that after that case was concluded, she disposed of them in the belief that she had no further need of them. Between the first and second hearing dates for this case, an effort was made to determine whether the evidence was still in the County Court's file. The evidence had been returned to Ms. Dorsett's attorney and to Eckerd Drug Store. No transcript of that proceeding was made. Based upon the testimony of all the witnesses including those who attended the County Court trial, I find that the register tapes which were presented at the County Court trial were 1)the detail tape from Vernell Williams' cash register, which was offered by the prosecution for the purpose of showing that the items in the possession of Ms. Dorsett had not been rung up by Ms. Williams; 2)Ms. Dorsett's receipt for the prescription; and 3)Ms. Dorsett's receipt for the laundry soap which she bought during her second visit to the store. Following the County Court's finding that Ms. Dorsett was not guilty of criminal conduct, she was reinstated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office in September, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Commission finding Ms. Dorsett guilty of shoplifting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, but due to the small value of the items involved, and the previous action of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, her certification should not be suspended or revoked, but she should be placed on probation for a period of 2 years. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4586 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact made by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 8. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact made by Ms. Dorsett, treating the paragraphs in her proposed findings as if they had been numbered: Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. (1)The statements by Vernell Williams are admissable. See, Conclusion of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the security agents where Eckerd Drugs do not have the authority to detain people. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Whitehurst, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Tangela Dorsett, pro se 2610 Fletcher Court Hollywood, FL 33020 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
