The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Martha L. Socarras is a Hispanic female born in 1970. In March 2006 Petitioner filed with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, an application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. On that application, she answered in the affirmative question numbered 1 in the Background Information portion of the application. That question asked if she had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty. In support of her application she submitted a certified copy of the Judgment in a Criminal Case entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 8, 1999. That Judgment recites that Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false claims against Health and Human Services, mail fraud, and paying kickbacks. Counts 2 through 27 were dismissed by the prosecution. Petitioner was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years of supervised probation. The Judgment also recites that the actual monetary loss was $700,000 and assessed the total amount of restitution to be paid by Petitioner as $1,114,676.04. The Judgment then provides that the amount of restitution was reduced to partial restitution in the amount of $500,000 due to Petitioner's inability to pay the full amount. The Judgment further provides that restitution to the Palmetto Government Benefits Administration was to be paid through the federal court. Petitioner was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, on January 4, 2002, but was detained by the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service. At the time of her release, she still owed $499,500 in restitution. In March 2002 an Immigration Judge granted Petitioner permanent resident status at the conclusion of the immigration removal proceeding. On January 3, 2005, Petitioner completed her probation and was discharged from supervision. Petitioner filed her application for licensure only a year later. Petitioner also provided to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation an unexecuted consent agreement between herself and the federal government providing that she would pay the $500,000 in restitution at the rate of $200 per month commencing February 1, 2005. Petitioner attributes her criminal conduct to ignorance of the Medicare laws. She was employed for three years by her brother's medical equipment business. Although Medicare performed several audits of that business during Petitioner's employment there, the last audit revealed that Petitioner and her brother were paying "commissions" to persons for referring patients to her brother's business. Petitioner asserts that she did not know that what they were doing was illegal. At the final hearing Petitioner testified that she had offered to the federal government property she owns which is sufficient in value to pay the required restitution but did not know if the federal government would accept her offer. The several letters of recommendation which Petitioner submitted to the Department are from persons who have known her as long as 18 years. None appear to know about her criminal conviction or to have noticed that she was missing for two years. One alleges the author has known Petitioner for five years, which must mean she met Petitioner while Petitioner was in prison. Similarly, the persons who testified on her behalf at the final hearing did not appear to know that she had a conviction or that she was in prison for two years. One witness testified she has known Petitioner for ten years and that she saw Petitioner three or four times a week. Another witness testified both that he has had no business dealings with Petitioner and that he transacts business with her. As evidence of rehabilitation, Petitioner offered evidence that she is a very religious person and active in ministry. However, that aspect of her life appears to have pre- existed her criminal conduct, existed during her criminal conduct, and continues to exist. It, therefore, fails to prove rehabilitation. Petitioner offered no evidence concerning her employment since her release from prison. Her witnesses offered vague testimony indicating she works in the title insurance industry, but no evidence was offered as to her role therein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 13th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Michael E. Murphy, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that she is of good moral character so as to receive an exemption from disqualification from employment with children or adults who are severely developmentally disabled, pursuant to Section 435.07(7), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Autumn Nichols is a 20 year-old woman living in her mother's home. She dropped out of school at age 16, and is currently studying to obtain a high school equivalency diploma (GED). Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence-battery in October 1995. She was subsequently adjudicated delinquent in the circuit court (juvenile division) and was placed on community control for a year, attended a law awareness class and a jail tour, performed 25 hours of community service and participated in an anger management class. Petitioner successfully completed her sanctions. On or about October 10, 1995, Petitioner became involved in a verbal argument with her brother. The argument escalated into a physical fight. Petitioner made threats to kill her brother and attempted to get a knife. The police arrested her and she was placed in the Juvenile Detention Center. Two days later, Petitioner was hospitalized due to severe emotional problems. Following the hospitalization, Petitioner was in residential treatment at Devereaux treatment center. She remained at Devereaux for six months and then attended the out- patient program. The episode with her brother, when she was 17, was her last episode of violence. Petitioner no longer verbalizes her anger. Petitioner has never had violent episodes outside the home. Petitioner was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. She has been hospitalized at least five times. Two of those hospitalizations were involuntary commitments (Baker Act). Petitioner, as recently as six months ago, checked herself into a residential treatment facility for depression. Petitioner's job experience has been limited due to her age. She worked for her mother caring for children in her mother's family daycare for one to two years in her early teens. When Petitioner was 18, she worked a summer job for her father in a restaurant, and at 19, Petitioner worked for three months as a telemarketer. In January 1998, Petitioner was hired by Tutor Time daycare center. She worked at the daycare for three months until she was disqualified from employment. Although Petitioner has demonstrated a sincere desire to work with children, she has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated. Insufficient time has elapsed since the incident, her mental health issues are too extensive and her work history is inadequate to show that she no longer presents a danger to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment in a child care facility be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen Sierra, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Autumn Nichols 513 Teakwood Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission operates within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and is the entity responsible for certifying to the Department that an applicant for licensure under Chapter 475 is qualified to practice as a real estate broker or salesperson. Sections 475.02 and .181, Florida Statutes (2001). On or about June 12, 2001, Mr. Parker submitted his application for licensure as a real estate salesperson to the Commission. In the application, Mr. Parker answered "yes" to Question 9, which asks in pertinent part: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? . . . If you answered "Yes," attach the full details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, on a separate sheet of paper. Mr. Parker attached to his application the results of a North Carolina criminal records check, which consisted of a cover sheet and three pages. Relevant to this proceeding, the information attached to Mr. Parker's application establishes the following: On May 26, 1994, Mr. Parker was found guilty of misdemeanor larceny; there is no indication that he received a sentence or paid a fine, court costs, or restitution. On June 29, 1995, Mr. Parker was found guilty of driving while impaired; he was sentenced to one year's unsupervised probation and paid either a fine or court costs in the amount of $160.00. On July 8, 1996, Mr. Parker waived trial on a charge of passing a worthless check; he paid either a fine or court costs in the amount of $60.00 and restitution in the amount of $76.30. On July 31, 1998, Mr. Parker was convicted of misdemeanor larceny; he was sentenced to six month's unsupervised probation and paid either a fine or court costs in the amount of $130.00. On June 12, 2000, Mr. Parker was found guilty of violating a domestic violence protective order; he was sentenced to six month's unsupervised probation and paid either a fine or court costs in the amount of $186.00. On August 6, 2000, Mr. Parker was charged with driving while impaired and driving without a license in his possession; trial was scheduled for February 21, 2001, but no disposition is indicated in the materials Mr. Parker provided. Mr. Parker admits to having driven while impaired in August 2000, but he has not been in trouble since his arrest on this charge. He completed an alcohol treatment program and has not consumed alcohol for one and one-half years. Mr. Parker understands that he has had problems in the past and believes that he has done better in the past two years. He moved to Florida in January 2001 in order to make a new life. At the time of the hearing, he was employed as a server at a restaurant. In that job, he routinely handles up to $1,000.00 in cash each day and always turns the money over to management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying the application of Robert L. Parker for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 26th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Parker 44 Douglas Drive Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Donna K. Ryan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty and responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Terrell Laverne Solomon, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number SL- 0653405. On or about June 16, 1997, Respondent filed an application (dated June 10, 1997) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" (by checking the appropriate box) to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered the question by checking the box marked "Yes," and attached a handwritten note which revealed the following details: I pleaded guilty for drug possession and carrying a concealed weapon. However, I don't know the exact date, but it been [sic] 10 to 15 years ago. I also have a conviction for driving under the influence in [19]84. The application concluded with Respondent's acknowledgement before a Notary Public of the State of Florida as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. On July 28, 1997, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and was issued license number SL-0653405 as an inactive salesperson. From September 17, 1997, through the date of hearing, Respondent has been licensed as an active salesperson associated with Anita Berger Realty, Inc., a broker corporation located at 21414 West Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Following approval of Respondent's application, and his licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department received the results of a state and federal records search which revealed a criminal history that included charges not disclosed on Respondent's application. That records search revealed the following criminal history in the Circuit and County Courts, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida (where Respondent was "convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld"): 2/ On April 8, 1978, Respondent was arrested and charged in Case No. M78-56023 with misdemeanor Battery, Resisting an Officer Without Violence, and Disorderly Conduct; and on August 19, 1981, was convicted of each charge and sentenced to a term of probation with special conditions. On September 17, 1979, Case No. 79- 12245, Respondent, upon entry of a plea of guilty, was found guilty of Shooting into an Occupied Dwelling; however, the court withheld an adjudication of guilt. (c) On June 17, 1985, Case No. 85-8549, Respondent, upon entry of a plea of guilty, was adjudicated guilty of Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Personal Injury (Count I), a third degree felony proscribed by Section 316.027, Florida Statutes, and Possession of a Controlled Substance, to- wit: Heroin (Count 2), a third degree felony proscribed by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes; however, the court stayed and withheld the imposition of sentence as to each count and placed Respondent on probation for a period of 4 years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Respondent's probation was subsequently revoked and on April 18, 1989, and he was committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, to be imprisoned for a term of 24 days, with credit for time served. On December 30, 1989, Case No. 89- 50035, Respondent was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm, and on December 31, 1989, was convicted and sentenced (the specifics of which are not of record). As heretofore noted, Respondent's application did reveal that he had entered a plea of "guilty for drug possession" (ostensibly the June 17, 1985, conviction) and "carrying a concealed weapon" (ostensibly the December 30, 1989, conviction). The remaining criminal history was not disclosed. Upon discovery of such information, the Department apprised Respondent of its discovery and requested an explanation. Respondent addressed the Department's concerns as follows: In regard with Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. I answer [sic] Question 9 on my application truthfully and to best of my ability. It was never my intention to violate Section 455.225 and 475.21, Florida Statutes. I enclose[d] a letter from Metro- Dade Police Department [with my application which] stated that I have felony arrest and misdemeanor arrest. At the time I was being finger printed for DBPR, I ask [sic] the finger printing officer can I have a copy of my convictions and was denied. I also enclosed a hand written letter statement, all the conviction I can remember, and that's why I check [sic] Question 9 Yes. I'm not proud of my past life, but I work hard to obtain my real estate license and wouldn't do anything to jeodarize [sic] my license. I just didn't remember my past convictions, that's why I answer [sic] question nine Yes. (Emphasis in original.) Thereafter, on October 26, 1999, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid incidents on his application, charged that Respondent has "obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment" in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I), and that Respondent has "failed to disclose in his application for a real estate salesperson [license] information that Rule 61J2-2.027(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires" and therefore, violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . [T]he penalty for each count or separate offense may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 3/ Consistent with the explanation he offered the Department for his failure to fully disclose his criminal history, Respondent explained, at hearing, that his response to item 9 on the application was, at the time, an accurate reflection of his recollection, and that it was not his intention to mislead the Department by failing to disclose the matters he overlooked. Specifically, the Respondent offered the following explanation at hearing: THE COURT: Why didn't you disclose your 1978 and 1979 problems with the disorderly conduct and battery and the discharging the firearm? THE WITNESS: There's no reason. When I went to get the fingerprint card done, I asked the officer, can I get a print out of my convictions and my felony record, and he told me that he didn't do that and I didn't know that I had to take it a step further. I only checked Question 9, yes, to show that I did have criminal past and I didn't know that I had to take it a step further than that. If I would have known that, I would have took the opportunity to go do that. But I didn't know that I had to check the question and to present that for the application. THE COURT: What the question asked you, if you answered, yes, then attach the details, the dates and the outcome. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's true and I know I should have done it. But I asked them to give me -- I couldn't put it on nobody but myself. I should have taken it a step further. To get the convictions. I wasn't trying to hide anything from the Department. * * * CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MARSH: Q Mr. Solomon, looking at your 1978 charge with the battery, resisting the officer and disorderly conduct and the 1979 charge with the shooting in the occupied dwelling . . . were you considering that if you disclosed those to the commission, that they would deny you a licensure? A No, that's why I checked the question, yes. I don't know how you look at it, but if I wanted to tell the truth about it, I would have checked, no, to the felony arrest. * * * Q Did you believe the Department would find all of your prior criminal cases? A Yes. I knew that they would find it but I didn't know that it would lead to this here, because I did check the question, yes. I didn't know it would lead to this, I would have taken that extra day and not taken the test and gotten the background check. (Transcript, pages 24-27). Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the full scope of his criminal history is credited, and it is resolved that, at the time he submitted his application, Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive the Department. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's testimony was candid, the nature of the incidents he disclosed were serious, as opposed to trivial, and his assumption that the complete details of his criminal history would be revealed when the Department (as it stated it would do on the application) checked his response against local, state, and federal records was well founded. Consequently, while his response to item 9 on the application was incomplete, Respondent's failure to more fully detail his criminal history is more appropriately characterized as a careless, thoughtless, or heedless act as opposed to a willful or intentional effort to mislead the Department as to the true character of his history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violation found, imposes a 30-day suspension and an administrative fine of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 2nd day of May, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for an exemption pursuant to chapter 435, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Approximately ten years ago, Atkinson was charged with attempted armed robbery of a book store. Atkinson offered the following facts relating to the attempted robbery: (1) she decided to rob a book store in Georgia, (2) she secured an unloaded BB gun, (3) she entered the store, (4) she changed her mind when she encountered verbal resistance from the store clerk, (5) she ran from the store, (6) she was apprehended a few blocks from the book store, and (7) she was arrested for armed robbery. Atkinson pled no contest to a lower charge of attempted theft by taking and was sentenced to four years unsupervised probation. Other than the attempted theft by taking, Atkinson has no criminal record. Atkinson operates a small daycare center from her home in Lynn Haven, Bay County, Florida. Because she intended to expand the facility, Atkinson filed the requisite applications with the Department. Subsequently, Atkinson's criminal record was revealed. As a result of her criminal record, Atkinson was advised that she was ineligible to hold a position caring for children. The Department notified Atkinson of her right to request an exemption. Subsequently, Atkinson appeared before the Department's exemption review board, and she spoke on her own behalf. Atkinson offered neither witnesses nor exhibits at the hearing. According to the Christiane LeClair, the Department's District Screening Coordinator, Atkinson appeared to minimize the seriousness of the offense, and she did not voice true remorse for her actions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the screening committee recommended denial of her exemption request. Atkinson contested the Department's decision denying her exemption. The contest resulted in this chapter 120 hearing before the undersigned administrative law judge. Unlike her appearance before the screening committee, at the administrative hearing Atkinson brought six witnesses and introduced a composite exhibit. The witnesses came from varying occupational backgrounds and varying educational levels and all shared similar positive impressions of Atkinson. For example, James Douglas Williams, a senior foster care counselor for the Department of Children and Family Services in Bay County, testified that Atkinson had cared for his children, that she was trustworthy, and that she was more than competent to care for children. Mr. Williams was aware of Atkinson's criminal past. He stated that her criminal past did not give him a negative impression of Atkinson, and he reasoned that the crime was a youthful indiscretion for which she has adequately paid her debt to society. Mr. Luther W. McDonald, Jr. also testified on behalf of Atkinson. Mr. McDonald is a thirty-seven year veteran of the Bay County School District, and he has lived next door to Atkinson for the past three years. Based on Mr. McDonald's personal observations, he feels that Atkinson is well able to provide care for children. Mr. McDonald also was aware of Atkinson's criminal conviction, and like Mr. Williams, he feels that it was an isolated event that occurred over ten years ago which should not now have a negative effect on her ability to serve as a child care provider. A series of satisfied parents also testified on Atkinson's behalf. Each parent testified that Atkinson had cared for their respective children and that she provided a warm, caring, and nurturing environment. They also testified that they were aware of her criminal history and that it had no impact on their decision to enroll their children in Atkinson's care.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order GRANTING Atkinson's request for exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On July 12, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a Resident Life including Variable Annuity and Health Insurance Agent with Respondent. Included among the questions on the application was the following: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Petitioner answered "no" in response to the question. The application requires the applicant to consent to the following statement: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). By affixing his electronic signature to the application, Petitioner affirmed that the information set forth therein was true. The evidence establishes that on April 7, 1978, Petitioner was sentenced to the Nassau County Correctional Center for a term of one year after entering a guilty plea to a felony count of Attempted Grand Larceny (Grand Jury Indictment No. 46323, June 24, 1977, Nassau County, New York.) Petitioner entered the Correctional Center to begin serving his sentence on December 15, 1978, and was released on February 28, 1979. Petitioner did not disclose the 1978 conviction on the application for licensure as an insurance agent. After completing a criminal history check, Respondent issued two deficiency letters, dated July 26, 2004, and August 5, 2004, seeking additional information related to Petitioner's background. In response to the deficiency letters, Petitioner submitted additional information and a letter. In the letter and in his testimony at the hearing, Petitioner stated that he misinterpreted the question, and believed that because he was incarcerated for less than one year, the 1978 conviction was responsive to the question. He stated that he did not intend to mislead or deceive Respondent. Respondent issued a Notice of Denial on August 25, 2004. The grounds for the denial was Petitioner's failure to disclose the 1978 conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying the application for licensure filed by Anthony A. Sagnelli and imposing a waiting period to expire on August 26, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of February, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be disqualified to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact The Department disqualified the Petitioner to work in a position of special trust and denied the Petitioner an exemption from that denial. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely challenged the agency's decision. The Petitioner is employed by Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. (EYA) an entity that operates the Eckerd Youth Development Center at Okeechobee, Florida. He has worked as a youth counselor at that facility since 1993. EYA contracts with the state of Florida to provide facilities for the juvenile justice system and, as such, must comply with employment qualifications for persons working with the juveniles assigned to the facility. The screening of EYA employees must be updated every five years. As part of the background screening process, EYA submitted paperwork for the Petitioner in 1998. The Department did not issue its disqualification decision until February 25, 2000. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought an exemption from the disqualification decision which was also denied by the Department on April 7, 2000. The delays in the re-screening decisions were not attributable to the Petitioner. The Department based its disqualification of the Petitioner and denial of the exemption on the criminal history set forth below. In 1995, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the possession of a weapon charge. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld by the court. Based upon the plea on the weapon charge, the Petitioner received a two-year probation, the weapon was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay court costs and fees. He successfully completed all aspects of the sentence. In 1994, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of domestic violence, a misdemeanor. The Petitioner was adjudicated guilty on this charge and sentenced to one year of probation. He successfully completed all aspects of the sentence on this case. The Department contends that domestic battery/violence is a disqualifying offense which precludes the Petitioner's employment in a position of special trust at the Eckerd Youth Development Center. At all times during his employment by EYA, the Petitioner has served as an outstanding employee. EYA timely filed all the necessary paperwork to have the Petitioner re-screened for employment purposes. At all times during his employment by EYA, the Petitioner has been an excellent role model. He has not exhibited any conduct that would suggest minors would be placed at risk of physical harm if placed in his care. According to Mr. Timko, the Petitioner is "probably one of the most mild- mannered, positive role models that we have out there." The Petitioner's explanations regarding his criminal record have been deemed sufficient and persuasive as to the facts of the underlying incidents. In particular as to the domestic battery/violence incident, it is found that the Petitioner did not harm the alleged victim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order either granting the Petitioner the exemption sought or finding that he has not committed an act of domestic violence such that he must be disqualified from employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. 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 9th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny R. Jenkins 3745 Northwest 27th Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34972 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Suite 300 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification for failure to meet minimum screening requirements for good moral character as specified by Section 409.175(2)(h), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact On May 11, 1986, an officer from the Office of Sheriff, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, arrested and charged Petitioner with battery on a spouse, a violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor. The incident arose when Petitioner's wife, Keturah Latimer, took the family car to arrange a visit between Petitioner's stepson and the stepson's father. Angered by his wife's actions, Petitioner struck her with his fists causing considerable bruising to her forehead and head. He was twenty-eight years old at that time. Petitioner spent thirteen days in jail and was released on bond. The record does not indicate the exact disposition of the case. However, Petitioner admits that he struck his wife. He also expressed remorse for his behavior. Petitioner has a clean record subsequent to this incident in May of 1986. He is now thirty-eight years old. Petitioner is raising his stepson, Demetrius, as his own son. Petitioner and his wife are attempting to adopt Lashon, the daughter of a family friend. Respondent's protective services staff placed Lashon in the Latimer's home when Lashon was three weeks old. Lashon is now three years old. The Respondent's protective supervision staff conducted a home study which found the Petitioner's home to be an appropriate placement for Lashon. Petitioner has been employed for the past nine (9) years with Premier Plastering doing stucco work. Petitioner attends church occasionally at Macedonia Baptist Church and his wife and children attend We're for Jesus Church. The Latimer's have been married for seventeen (17) years and have three (3) sons of their own; they have had no involvement with Respondent's protective investigations staff. Petitioner and his family attended and completed Respondent's training for prospective foster parents.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment as a family foster home parent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes the undersigned's rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-10. Accepted in substance and as restated in Findings of Fact 1-12 of this Recommended Order. The undersigned agrees with Respondent's findings of fact but not with the proposed conclusions of law. The testimony presented by the Latimers was very persuasive. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Lawrence D. Latimer 1608 Golf Forest Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 728 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Eugenia Mays, has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with developmentally disabled persons; and, thus, whether Respondent’s intended action to deny Petitioner’s request for an exemption from employment disqualification is an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust, and is charged with serving and protecting adults or children with developmental disabilities, sometimes referred to as vulnerable individuals.2/ Vulnerable populations served by APD may include individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Down syndrome. Some of APD’s clients are incapable of expressing their needs or unable to express whether something is wrong. APD also has administrative jurisdiction to enforce the laws governing such licensees. Petitioner is a 55-year-old female seeking licensure from APD to serve as a direct care provider for Respondent’s clients. As part of the application process for employment as a direct service provider, Petitioner was subject to a routine pre- employment background screening pursuant to section 435.04, Florida Statutes. The screening revealed the existence of several disqualifying criminal incidents in Petitioner’s past. In 1987, 1990 and 1994, Petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and the sale of cocaine. Additionally, there were several non- disqualifying events in Petitioner’s background. On January 9, 2017, Petitioner executed her Request for Exemption, which was filed with the Department of Children and Families (DCF).3/ DCF conducts the initial screening of all applicants by making sure all the required documents are present and then it conducts the initial background investigation for APD. Background screening and local criminal records revealed a history of involvement with law enforcement. Petitioner admitted and took full responsibility for the offenses in both the paperwork she filed with APD and in her testimony at hearing. DCF then issued a “high level summary” to APD. Among the items submitted by Petitioner in support of her Request for Exemption were her employment history record, information regarding the final court dispositions of the arrest reports and/or charging affidavit; information regarding the completion of sanctions; her proof of rehabilitation; letters of recommendation; her personal history; an executed affidavit of good moral character; the non-disqualifying issues; and an updated local law result. Several letters were sent to Petitioner seeking additional information, and Petitioner responded to the best of her ability to each request for information. Once Ms. Jones received the DCF summary, she reviewed Petitioner’s documentation. She then checked the court and other systems for any additional charges that may not have been included by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ms. Jones also verified that any court-ordered sanctions were completed. Ms. Jones had access to state and federal government databases, including a comprehensive case information system to ensure that all fines and fees were paid, and she checked the applicant’s “driving record through the DMV.” Additionally, she checked Petitioner’s “eligibilities through AHCA and Medicaid.” Ms. Jones then prepared a summary packet, which was provided to the ROM. The ROM must review the packet within a certain time frame and provide a recommendation to the State Office Committee (SOC). ROM Smith identified the factors that he considered when making his recommendation: the disqualifying offense(s); the circumstances surrounding the offense; any proof or some evidence of rehabilitation or counseling; any show of “some remorse and/or ownership of the charges that have been filed”; the possible consequences to “the health and safety of the individuals that” APD serves; and “any non-disqualifying offenses that may have been charged against the individual.” ROM Smith recommended denial of Petitioner’s exemption request. Upon receipt of the ROM’s recommendation, Ms. Jones then prepared a recommendation summary and presented that to the SOC. The SOC consists of APD’s chief of staff and a program administrator from the regional support unit. An APD attorney was present for legal advice. Ms. Jones identified the factors that APD’s SOC considers in making the recommendation for the denial of an exemption request as: “any arrests or criminal convictions after the original disqualifying offense; the employment history; training and education; professional references”; driving record; other agency exemptions or involvement with other agencies; and any inspections or exemptions of the other agencies. Ms. Jones averred that APD takes “into account those inspections or those exemptions.” Once the SOC made its recommendation, Ms. Jones took the two recommendations (the ROM’s and the SOC’s) to APD’s director who reviewed the material to make the final decision. Ms. Jones averred that “most of the time common sense is used” when APD approached the question of rehabilitation standards. That if the issue involved a drug-related offense, one would look for drug rehabilitation, and if that were missing, “that is a lack of responsibility on the applicant’s part.” A review of Petitioner’s application, and her uncontroverted testimony confirmed that she has been employed in several successful occupations since 1990. Petitioner’s first business, started in 1990, was Precise Nail and Beauty Salon (Salon). When the economy went down, Petitioner determined she needed a second job and that is when she started working for a home companion company in Bradenton. The Salon continues in operation today. Petitioner did research to begin her own home companion company and started Precise Home Companions (PHC). PHC is a non- medical operation, which is certified through the state to go into private homes and provide non-medical home care. This care includes preparing meals, doing laundry, making their beds, helping persons with their bills, taking them to and from doctors’ appointments, and whatever other activities they need. Petitioner successfully completed a Level 2 background screening and took the classes and/or training necessary for the license. Petitioner obtained the requisite insurance and continues to hold the appropriate bond for PHC. In setting up PHC, Petitioner was given access to conduct background screenings to hire more staff. Once the staff was on board, Petitioner had to ensure they had training and were tested for “TB.” Petitioner was responsible for making sure the six employees recorded their work hours in order for the payroll service to issue their pay. Petitioner recognized another area of need when a PHC client needed more attention than PHC could provide. Petitioner researched and opened an adult family care home. Petitioner’s adult family care home (AFCH) is licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). AFCH is Petitioner’s responsibility and she maintains the requisite insurance and bond. AFCH is a home which provides room and board for up to five elderly clients, although only four were in residence on the hearing date. The clients may need assistance with their activities of daily living. AFCH also keeps the residents busy with various activities, outings and events. Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner testified that her “downfall,” as she refers to it, occurred in and before 1994. Between 1987 and 1994, Petitioner (when she was between 25 and 31 years of age) was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, sale of cocaine, and possession of cocaine, all disqualifying offenses. Petitioner steadfastly maintained that she has never used drugs, but possessed and sold them in order to support her children. No evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner ever used drugs. Petitioner admitted that it was her “decision to do wrong,” and she took full responsibility for those actions. However, Petitioner was clear that it was also her determination to change when she realized she had been wrong. Petitioner did change and for the past 23 years has not had a disqualifying offense. Petitioner changed her environment. She joined a church and became very active in it. She divorced her then- husband who she found to be using drugs. Petitioner recently married a man with a bachelor’s degree in rehabilitation counseling. Petitioner completed the sanctions imposed by the courts, and all fees and costs related to the disqualifying offenses were paid. For the past 23 years, Petitioner has not had any disqualifying offenses. Marvin Smith has known Petitioner for approximately ten years, having married Petitioner’s mother. Smith visits in Petitioner’s home once or twice a month, and does not think her residence is a “destructive environment.” Smith has attended church with Petitioner, and sees her lifestyle as “moving in the right direction.” Further, in the ten years Smith has known Petitioner, he has never seen her act in a violent manner.4/ Marvina Johnson-Allen has known Petitioner for over 20 years, and has witnessed Petitioner caring for people in her church and home. Additionally, Johnson-Allen provided insight into the various successful businesses that Petitioner has started, and Petitioner’s volunteer work in the community. Kathy Barnes has known Petitioner for over ten years, having met her at Petitioner’s beauty salon. Barnes was not Petitioner’s employee, but as a customer, Barnes watched Petitioner work hard. In over ten years, Barnes has never seen Petitioner use drugs or alcohol. At one point Barnes had major surgery, and without being asked by Barnes, Petitioner supplied housekeepers to enable Barnes to recover from the surgery. Edward Gresham has known Petitioner for approximately three years, and is now Petitioner’s husband. Gresham works as a rehabilitation counselor in the health care field, and also works in the home that Petitioner operates. Gresham has successfully cleared a Level 2 background check. Further, he has observed Petitioner ensuring that residents are clothed in their own clothes, are fed, and receive their allowances. In the three years he has known Petitioner, Gresham has not seen Petitioner use alcohol or illegal drugs. Non-Disqualifying Offense APD focused on (in addition to the drug rehabilitation issue) Petitioner’s driving record, and her designation as a habitual driving offender. The basis for this focus was a concern that Petitioner might drive a client to an appointment. Petitioner recently completed a driver’s education course, from which she learned a great deal about her responsibilities as a driver. She paid the fines associated with the offender status, and she has a current, valid work driver’s license. Petitioner anticipates obtaining a completely clear driver’s license in June 2018. In denying the request for exemption, APD “considered all available information that led to [Petitioner’s] disqualification, as well as all information provided by” Petitioner regarding the disqualification. APD denied Petitioner’s request because she had “not submitted clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation.” Other Attributes of Significance Petitioner has worked consistently over a sustained period in a position in which she cares for multiple persons. By all accounts, Petitioner is a reliable, kind, caring and diligent worker, and her current continuous employment demonstrates that she can be trusted to work appropriately in situations involving vulnerable adults. Petitioner is licensed by AHCA. She holds an exemption from AHCA which has been appropriately renewed since its issuance. Petitioner is allowed to participate in the Medicaid program as a provider. Petitioner completed courses necessary to obtain the requisite licenses. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes, the controlling statute regarding the exemptions from disqualification, provides the following, in pertinent part: Exemptions from disqualification.—Unless otherwise provided by law, the provisions of this section apply to exemptions from disqualification for disqualifying offenses revealed pursuant to background screenings required under this chapter, regardless of whether those disqualifying offenses are listed in this chapter or other laws. (1)(a) The head of the appropriate agency may grant to any employee otherwise disqualified from employment an exemption from disqualification for: Felonies for which at least 3 years have elapsed since the applicant for the exemption has completed or been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony; * * * (b) A person applying for an exemption who was ordered to pay any amount for any fee, fine, fund, lien, civil judgment, application, costs of prosecution, trust, or restitution as part of the judgment and sentence for any disqualifying felony or misdemeanor must pay the court-ordered amount in full before he or she is eligible for the exemption. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “felonies” means both felonies prohibited under any of the statutes cited in this chapter or under similar statutes of other jurisdictions. * * * (3)(a) In order for the head of an agency to grant an exemption to any employee, the employee must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the employee should not be disqualified from employment. Employees seeking an exemption have the burden of setting forth clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident for which an exemption is sought, the time period that has elapsed since the incident, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, and the history of the employee since the incident, or any other evidence or circumstances indicating that the employee will not present a danger if employment or continued employment is allowed. The agency may consider as part of its deliberations of the employee’s rehabilitation the fact that the employee has, subsequent to the conviction for the disqualifying offense for which the exemption is being sought, been arrested for or convicted of another crime, even if that crime is not a disqualifying offense. The decision of the head of an agency regarding an exemption may be contested through the hearing procedures set forth in chapter 120. The standard of review by the administrative law judge is whether the agency’s intended action is an abuse of discretion. * * * (5) Exemptions granted by one agency shall be considered by subsequent agencies, but are not binding on the subsequent agency. Rehabilitation is not defined in statute or rule. Petitioner’s last disqualifying offenses occurred in 1994, approximately 23 years ago. At some point, the passage of time itself, without any disqualifying offenses, must be evidence of rehabilitation. While by no means dispositive, the passage of 23 years since the last disqualifying offense is substantial evidence of Petitioner’s rehabilitation. Petitioner’s forthright demeanor and her willingness to discuss her “downfall” and her determination to turn her life around are significant. Petitioner testified convincingly that she has turned her life around, and is not the same person that she was 23 plus years ago. Petitioner has successfully worked with elderly persons in a positive and helpful manner, and currently presents no danger to the vulnerable population served by Respondent. The concerns outlined by Respondent in its decision letter, without the benefit of the hearing testimony, were refuted by the credible testimony adduced at hearing. Common sense tells a huge story of Petitioner’s rehabilitated life. Petitioner meets the objective criteria for an exemption from disqualification as established by section 435.07(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities granting Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 12th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the certification, and the revocation of certification, of officers and instructors in the criminal justice disciplines. Mr. Marchetti was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on August 30, 2008, and was issued law enforcement certificate number 278005. Mr. Marchetti was not employed by a criminal justice agency on October 30, 2016. On that date, in the early afternoon, Deputy Lawhorn was working as a road patrol deputy with Deputy Brewster, her field training officer (FTO), during an early phase of her training. The deputies arrived at 108 Petals Road in Fort Pierce in their marked patrol unit to serve an injunction for protection, a civil restraining order, directed to Timothy Marchetti. The deputies were to identify the person to be served, provide him a copy of the injunction papers, explain what the order required, and advise of the court date. The deputies knocked on the door, and Mr. Marchetti answered the door. The deputies, wearing St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office uniforms in plain view of Mr. Marchetti, announced that they were there to serve process on Timothy Marchetti and asked to speak with him. Mr. Marchetti falsely identified himself as his brother, Mark Marchetti, with a date of birth of September 15, 1983. Mr. Marchetti added that he was often mistaken for his brother. The deputies asked when Timothy Marchetti would be returning. Mr. Marchetti responded that Timothy was at church with his mother and should return shortly. The paperwork that the deputies had been provided prior to serving the injunction included a driver's license photo, and that photo appeared to match the individual the deputies were talking to. The paperwork also indicated that Timothy Marchetti had an identifying mark, a tattoo on his biceps. When asked to see his biceps, Mr. Marchetti instead showed the deputies his triceps, which had no tattoo. Believing that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them, but wanting to continue to investigate because sometimes brothers do bear close physical resemblance, Deputy Brewster asked Deputy Lawhorn to return to the patrol unit to run the name "Mark Marchetti" through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. At the vehicle, she also pulled up a picture of Mark Marchetti from the DAVID website. That picture did not match the driver's license picture in the deputies' possession or the appearance of the individual that had answered the door. Deputy Lawhorn returned to the doorway, told Deputy Brewster what she had learned and asked him to check the information. After Deputy Brewster went to the vehicle, Mr. Marchetti attempted to leave. Deputy Lawhorn blocked his way and advised him that he could not leave. Mr. Marchetti had not yet been arrested. The deputies had a well-founded suspicion that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them about his identity, and they were continuing their investigation of that crime. At this point, a woman who identified herself as Mr. Marchetti's mother came to the property and encountered Deputy Brewster. She confirmed that the individual in the doorway was her son, Timothy Marchetti. Deputy Brewster returned to the doorway and advised Mr. Marchetti that he was under arrest. After his arrest, the deputies placed themselves on either side of Mr. Marchetti to handcuff him, and Respondent pulled away in "surprise or shock" as he was being handcuffed, but there was minimal, if any, active physical resistance. After his arrest, Mr. Marchetti apologized to Deputy Brewster for lying to him about his identity. Through his deception, Mr. Marchetti resisted, obstructed, and opposed Deputies Lawhorn and Brewster in their execution of legal process. Mr. Marchetti failed to maintain good moral character in that he willfully obstructed law enforcement officers in the lawful execution of their duty to serve an injunction against him by giving them a false name and date of birth. No evidence of any prior disciplinary history was introduced for Mr. Marchetti.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Timothy J. Marchetti in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and suspending his certification for a period of five days, followed by a one-year period of probation subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 11th day of January, 2019.
