Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Joseph F. Connolly, II, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida under Certificate Number 393556, in the areas of public service and E.M.R. medical technology. On May 25, 1982, Respondent was employed as a teacher by Mid-Florida Technical Institute (MFTI), a part of the Orange County, Florida, School District. For a period of time prior to late 1981 or early 1982, Respondent had been teaching at an off-campus facility of this school, but at about that time he was brought onto the main campus and assigned to clerical duties not related to teaching. He was, however, on the rolls as a teacher and paid as such, and maintained his teacher credentials and license. On January 22, 1982, Respondent submitted a request for military leave in order to engage in Army Reserve training to extend from January 29 through February 15, 1982. Attached to this request was a set of military orders signed by a Captain Decker. Due to illness, this leave was not taken by Respondent. On May 25, 1982, Respondent again submitted a request for leave for military duty for the period June 7-16, 1982. This request was given to Respondent's supervisor, Chester F. Dalton, who asked that Respondent wait while he checked with the school director concerning the need for military orders to accompany the request. This second request was not, at the time, supported by military orders. The director, Mr. Stephens, indicated that orders were required, which information Mr. Dalton passed on to Respondent. Within two or three days, Respondent brought in a set of orders bearing the signature of Captain Deck and personally handed them to Mr. Dalton. Mr. Dalton gave them to his secretary, Mrs. Zimmer, to process. Mrs. Zimmer, who has been married to a military member for many years and is familiar with the basics of military orders, was not comfortable with these. They appeared to her to have been altered, and, when she held these and the orders which accompanied the January leave request up to the light, she observed that they were identical except for the dates and the last two letters in the signing official's name. Mrs. Zimmer brought her suspicions to the attention of Mr. Dalton, who, in turn, took them to Mr. Stephens, who, in turn, took them to Dr. James L. Scaggs, Associate Superintendent for Employee Relations of the Orange County Schools. Dr. Scaggs suggested the school officials verify the orders and, in the interim, notify Respondent that his pay would be held up pending verification. When the inquiry, outlined above, revealed the orders were invalid, Dr. Scaggs forwarded a report of the circumstances to Petitioner. Inquiry of Captain Raymond K. Carter, executive Officer of Respondent's Reserve unit, revealed the orders were invalid. There was no Captain Deck assigned to the unit, nor was there any training period scheduled for the period June 7-16, 1982. After a brief inquiry, the Reserve organization determined to take no action against Respondent, but to leave action to his employers. In the interim, on June 7, 1982, Mr. Dalton received another leave request for the period June 7-16, 1982, dated June 3, 1982, this time not for military training, but for Red Cross training to retain certification in his field of teaching. Attached to this request was an unsigned note requesting that the May 25 leave request be retrieved and returned in the attached envelope and this latter one substituted. Because, however, it is school board policy not to pay teachers to take certification training during school session time, this June 3 request was disapproved. By this time, also, the May 25 request had been approved by Mr. Stephens and had been forwarded to the superintendent's office for approval. Consequently, the May 25 leave request, which had false orders attached to it, was approved, and the June 3 request was denied. When the June 3 request was received on June 7, Respondent had presumably departed on leave which, under either request, was to begin on June 7, and no effort was made to contact him. There is no evidence to indicate other than that when Respondent submitted the orders to go with the May 25 leave request he knew they were false and that, therefore, his application was false, and it is so found. School officials consider the filing of false documents as definitely reducing Respondent's future effectiveness as a teacher, since it would render all future documents he might submit, of whatever nature, suspect. A teacher whose reports and communications cannot be accepted as true within the school system cannot function effectively within the system. Respondent urged in argument that his utilization as a file clerk at the time the leave request was submitted, and not as a teacher, takes him outside the issue of his effectiveness as a teacher. Without determining that legal issue here, it is nonetheless determined that while he was not, on March 25, 1982, being utilized by MFTI as a teacher, he was under contract as a teacher, had been employed as a teacher, was being paid as a teacher, and was licensed as a teacher. Under these conditions, therefore, he was a teacher and may be considered as such for the purposes of this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license to teach in the State of Florida be suspended fob two years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 15th day of October, 1983. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esq. Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph F. Connolly, II 4218 Arajo Court Orlando, Florida 32812 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners and holds license No. ME 005851. On 1 November 1979 Respondent was adjudged guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a controlled substance by deception. He was sentenced to an "indeterminate term of from six (6) months to five (5) years" and was committed to the Lawtey Correctional Institute, Lawtey, Florida. John Carroll, a narcotics detective with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, testified that he had conducted the investigation which led to the arrest and conviction of Respondent. This witness had no personal knowledge that Respondent provided one Fowler with blank prescription forms or forms containing only Respondent's signature, that Fowler paid Respondent cash, or that Respondent knew or should have known that Fowler was obtaining controlled substances with these forged prescriptions and selling these substances on the street. In his testimony Respondent admitted that he could have approved some forged prescriptions when called by the pharmacist to verify the prescriptions without knowing who the prescriptions were for.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 4, 1994, the Petitioner filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1994, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him of its intention to deny his application. The sole stated ground for denial was described as "[f]ailure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j). You committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of yourself or another." The denial letter also made specific reference to the date of February 21, 1993, and specifically referred to criminal charges allegedly brought against the Petitioner on that date for battery and aggravated battery. With regard to the Respondent's basis for denial, the proof demonstrates that during the early afternoon of February 21, 1993, the Petitioner became involved in an argument with Jessica Favata, an adult female with whom he was acquainted. The intensity of the argument escalated and at one point the Petitioner physically pushed Ms. Favata. At that point a male friend of Ms. Favata, one Bradley Watson, injected himself into the argument. As the intensity of the argument between the Petitioner and Mr. Watson continued to increase, the Petitioner retrieved an aluminum baseball bat from his motor vehicle and began swinging the bat in the general direction of Mr. Watson. During the course of one of the swings of the bat, the Petitioner struck Ms. Favata on the hand with the bat. As a result of being struck by the bat, Ms. Favata's hand was visibly injured. During the course of the events described in the preceding paragraph neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were armed with any type of weapon. Similarly, neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the Petitioner.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 31st day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Francisco Palafox, Jr., made applications for licensure as an unarmed guard and an armed guard. In both applications he answered that he had never been arrested. The Petitioner's fingerprints were checked by the Respondent Division through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a record of arrest in San Francisco, California, was revealed for Frank Madrano Palafox, Social Security #560-96-6038, born January 14, 1953, in Arizona. Correspondence with the authorities resulted in receipt of records from San Francisco, California (Exhibit 1), which reveal that Frank Madrano Palafox was arrested and charged on August 21, 1973, with possession of a prohibited weapon, but later the charge was dropped to prohibited loitering while carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor. Palafox's occupation on these records is given as Army. The Petitioner produced his military records of discharge (DD 214), on which Petitioner's name, birth date, social security number and birth place were the same as that on the FBI report. Petitioner said that at the time of his arrest he had loaned his identification to another soldier. However, his DD 214 show that he was on leave at the time the arrest occurred, and that he was charged for excessive unearned military leave for the same number of days the arrest record shows that Palafox was jailed. The Petitioner then remembered he was arrested for "aiding and abetting prostitution." The Petitioner did not report the arrest for aiding and abetting on his application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's applications for licensure as an unarmed guard and an armed guard be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Francisco Palafox, Jr. 1551 Michigan Avenue, Apt. 12A Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner for a license as an employee guard should be granted or denied, based upon the grounds for tentative denial stated in the Department's letter dated August 23, 1978. At the hearing, the Department of State introduced the application of Willie F. Scott which stated that Scott had been arrested for driving without a license in 1969. The applicant testified that he had been arrested in 1967 in Miami, Florida for suspicion of armed robbery, that he had been arrested in 1969 in Long Beach, California for driving while intoxicated, had been arrested in 1970 in Atlanta, Georgia for disturbing the peace, had been arrested in Miami, Florida in 1971 for possession of marijuana, and had been arrested in Miami, Florida in 1972 for driving without a license. The Applicant further testified that he had revealed all of the foregoing arrests to his employer or a representative thereof, and that said representative had filled out his application and had advised him not to state these additional arrests. The grounds stated for denial by the Department was falsification of the application for licensure. The issue presented at final hearing was whether the Applicant had falsified his application when he advised his employer of the arrest and the employer, who filled out the application, failed to report the arrests?
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Scott is an Applicant for a license as an employee guard. This includes licensure both as an armed and unarmed guard. Scott signed an application which was presented to the Department of State. The application was filled out by Scott's supervisor, an agent of Scott's employer. Scott revealed his arrest record to the employer's agent who did not include these matters on Scott's application. Although Scott had been arrested several times prior to 1972, his only conviction was for driving while intoxicated while in Long Beach, California while he was in the Marine Corps. Scott served in the United States Marine Corps for two years and was honorably discharged with the rank of lance corporal. During the period of his employment, Scott has been promoted by his employer from patrolman to patrol sergeant. Scott was arrested in 1967 in Miami, in 1969 in Long Beach California, in 1970 in Atlanta, Georgia, and in 1971 in Miami, Florida. His only conviction was for driving while intoxicated in Long Beach, California.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State issue Willie F. Scott Class F and G licenses as an employee guard. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Willie F. Scott 5300 Northwest 33rd Northwest Miami, Florida 33142 Gerald Curington, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Marvin Sirotowitz Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent’s certification as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Certificate Number 91034 to Respondent on August 24, 1984. At all times material to this matter, Respondent worked as a patrolman for the City of Chiefland Police Department. During the last couple months of his active duty service, he was training to become a K-9 officer. In 1993, Petitioner issued a letter of guidance to Respondent and placed him on one year of probation after Respondent admitted that he had engaged in sex while on duty. On March 17, 1994, Henry W. Nicholson became Chief of Police in the City of Chiefland. In the summer of 1994, Michelle Hallman (formerly Michelle King) worked at ABC Pizza. She was eighteen years old at that time. On days that she was not working, Michelle sometimes went to ABC Pizza to help the other employees close up. On one such evening, Ms. Hallman met Respondent and Officer Hicks in the ABC Pizza Parking lot. They had a casual conversation in which Ms. Hallman joked that she would tell the Chief that Respondent had pinched her on the butt. Respondent laughed and replied that he would tell the Chief that Ms. Hallman dropped on her knees and begged. Respondent also told Ms. Hallman that he did not need that kind of trouble again. The Chief pulled into the parking lot while Ms. Hallman was talking to Respondent and Officer Hicks. The Chief needed to let Respondent know that he was not planning to go to K-9 training with Respondent that evening. About a month later, on June 10, 1994, Respondent was patrolling near a community center known as the Pine Land Center. He saw Ms. Hallman riding by in her car. He and Ms. Hallman pulled their respective cars into the parking lot of the community center and had another casual conversation. During this conversation, Ms. Hallman asked Respondent if he ever messed around. Respondent replied that because of his past problems he never went out with anyone unless the girl asked him. The next evening, June 11, 1994, Respondent began his shift at 6:00 p.m. He was scheduled to work a twelve hour shift. Early in the evening, Respondent saw Deputy Meeks, a deputy with the sheriff’s office. They agreed to eat supper together at the Subway around 11:00 p.m. As the evening progressed, Respondent answered several calls. Between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent responded to a call involving a dog bite. After completing the matter involving the dog bite, Respondent saw Ms. Hallman at or near the Circle K. She told him she wanted to talk to him. They agreed to meet at a small public park known as Delma Lock. The park was near a school and a football field. A baseball game was in progress at a baseball field located between the Circle K and the park. The area of the park in which Respondent and Ms. Hallman met was dimly lit. Even so, Ms. Hallman felt like there were too many people around the park or driving by that might recognize her. Respondent suggested they go to the police station. Respondent parked his patrol car in front of the police station. When Ms. Hallman arrived she parked on the side of the building. They went in the side door and into Respondent’s office. There was no other person present in the building. Ms. Hallman told Respondent that she had been a witness to an automobile accident earlier in the day. Respondent and Ms. Hallman had been in his office just a few minutes when Deputy Meeks knocked on the back door of the police station. Respondent opened the door for Deputy Meeks who was ready to go to the Subway for supper. While Respondent and Deputy Meeks were eating their sandwiches at the Subway, Ms. Hallman came in to get a sandwich for a friend of hers. She carried on a brief conversation with Respondent. Sometime around midnight, Respondent spent a few minutes at the Midtown Jiffy visiting with a friend of his, Joan Schubert. From 12:46 to 12:56 a.m., Respondent checked on the alarm at the Senior Citizens Center. Respondent next saw Ms. Hallman near the Circle K. They agreed to meet back at the Delma Lock park. Once again there were too many people at the park for Ms. Hallman to be comfortable. Respondent suggested they meet at the Department of Transportation building. He told Ms. Hallman how to find the building. Ms. Hallman arrived at the designated building first. Respondent pulled into the driveway and told her to follow him. They drove behind the building and parked. Both of them got out of their cars. The area was well lit, but cars from the highway in front could not see what was going on. Respondent took off his gun belt and dropped his pants. Ms. Hallman dropped her shorts. They had sexual intercourse standing up and leaning against the trunk of Ms. Hallman’s car. After having sex, Respondent heard a radio call for Deputy Meeks to respond to a disturbance at Levy Norris’s house. The call originated around 1:35 a.m. The dispatcher explained that the Norris residence was across the road from the Catholic church and down an unpaved road beside Thompson’s garage. Respondent knew that Deputy Meeks was making the final loop of his patrol before going off duty at 2:00 a.m. Respondent was out of breath when he got to his radio. He called Deputy Meeks on the radio and asked him where he was coming from. Deputy Meeks replied that he was in Rosewood which was at least ten miles away. Respondent said that he was “right here at the church.” Respondent asked Deputy Meeks whether he should wait or go on to the Norris residence. Deputy Meeks told Respondent to go ahead and gave Respondent directions. Respondent left Ms. Hallman in the parking lot of the Department of Transportation building. She did not see him again. Respondent was enroute to the Norris residence by 1:38 a.m. He arrived on the scene at 1:42 a.m. It took him four minutes to get there. The Catholic church was used as a landmark to identify the road on which Levy Norris lived. It is located in the same vicinity as the Department of Transportation building where Respondent met Ms. Hallman. Later in June of 1994, Ms. Hallman went to Chief Nicholson to complain that another of his officers made derogatory comments about her which caused her to lose a prior job. Ms. Hallman said the same officer was attempting to get her fired from her current job by making derogatory remarks about her to her employer. In the course of investigating this complaint, Chief Nicholson learned that Respondent may have had an affair with Ms. Hallman. Chief Nicholson called Ms. Hallman and requested that she come to his office. At that meeting, Ms. Hallman denied that she and Respondent had sex. A day or two later, Ms. Hallman returned to Chief Nicholson’s office. She admitted that she had sex with Respondent. Respondent never included his interaction with Ms. Hallman in his duty log. Respondent gave sworn statements to Chief Nicholson on June 24, 1994 and July 1, 1994. When questioned, Respondent knowingly made false statements to mislead Chief Nicholson about his relationship with Ms. Hallman. Chief Nicholson concluded his internal investigation and decided to terminate Respondent’s employment. Chief Nicholson advised Respondent of his decision in a memorandum dated July 6, 1994 and received by Respondent’s counsel on July 25, 1994. The Chiefland City Commission, sitting as the City Personnel Review Board, conducted a hearing on August 29, 1997. Respondent’s employment with the City of Chiefland was terminated effective September 6, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent’s law enforcement certification. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 8th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Joan Stewart, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1218 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs due to her successful challenge to the Department’s classification as confirmed of a report of exploitation listing her as perpetrator.
Findings Of Fact After a full evidentiary hearing on the merits, the undersigned, on October 9, 1998, entered a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 98-0411C, recommending that FPSS Report of exploitation No. 97-075800, reflecting Respondent as perpetrator and C.B. as victim, be classified as unfounded and expunged from the Department records. The evidence introduced by the Department at the hearing, standing alone, would clearly raise a question in the mind of an impartial reviewer, as to whether Respondent, who had been given unlimited power of attorney by her father, had improperly converted his assets to her own use. However, Respondent presented evidence at hearing which satisfactorily answered this question, and the undersigned concluded that the Department had not established exploitation by the Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. The Department subsequently concurred and the offending report was reclassified and expunged.
