Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance, but not with those of petitioner. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Esteban Tabaoado (Tabaoado), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer periodically since September 11, 1984, without benefit of certification. On or about September 9, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Tabaoado. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated September 9, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Tabaoado had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Tabaoado and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Tabaoado filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Tabaoado denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to his application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether he currently possesses the requisite moral character for employment. 4/ Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Tabaoado on January 31, 1984, at which time he admitted to having used cocaine approximately eight times, the last time being in 1980, and to having used marijuana a few times, the last time being in June of 1983. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, Tabaoado was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and served satisfactorily until 1986. On December 14, 1986, evidence that Tabaoado had a substance abuse problem surfaced. On that date, Tabaoado telephoned his former supervisor, Lieutenant Lois Spears, a confidante, and advised her that he had been using drugs and did not think he could work that night. Lt. Spears advised Tabaoado not to report for work that evening, but to report the next morning to the administrative offices. The following day, Tabaoado met with Lt. Spears and Ervie Wright, the director of the Department's program services, which include employee counseling. At that time, Tabaoado conceded that he had been abusing cocaine, and Mr. Wright recommended that he seek assistance for his problem. On January 5, 1987, the County terminated Tabaoado's employment as a correctional officer for failure to maintain a drug-free life-style. On October 19, 1987, following Tabaoado's attendance at a drug rehabilitation program, the County re-employed him as a correctional officer. To date, Tabaoado has been so employed for approximately one and one-half years without incident, and his performance has been above satisfactory. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Recently, on January 20, 1989, Tabaoado married Olfuine Tabaoado, who has been a correctional officer with the County for almost three years. According to Ms. Tabaoado, she has never known him to use drugs during the one- year period that she has known him, and Tabaoado has proven to be a good father to her son from a previous marriage. While Tabaoado may have abstained from the use of drugs since his re- employment with the County, or even since January of 1987, the proof is not compelling in this regard. Rather, the proof demonstrates that Tabaoado's use of drugs, at least of cocaine, was frequent and protracted. Here, Tabaoado, born September 2, 1960, to the extent that he would admit it, used cocaine 8 times until 1980 and marijuana a "few times" until 1983. Thereafter, following his initial employment by the County as a correctional officer, he used cocaine to such an extent that by December 14, 1986, he was unable to perform his job and was in need of professional help to address his drug abuse. Such frequent and protracted use on his part does not evidence the requisite good moral character necessary for certification as a correctional officer. Here, Tabaoado chose not to testify at hearing, and there is no competent or persuasive proof to demonstrate that he successfully completed the drug rehabilitation program; when, if ever, he ceased using cocaine; whether he now has an appreciation of the impropriety of his conduct; or whether he can reasonably be expected to avoid such conduct in the future. Notably, on October 5, 1987, prior to his re-employment, Tabaoado underwent another pre-employment interview. At that time, Tabaoado told the interviewer, who had also conducted his first interview, that he had not used any drugs since his last interview on January 31, 1984. Such response was patently false, since he had abused cocaine at least as recently as December 1986. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is concluded that Tabaoado has failed to demonstrate that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Esteban Tabaoado, for certification as a correctional officer be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications of a law enforcement officer to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 14, 1988, as a law enforcement officer, Certification Number 55408, and at all times relevant, the certification was active. Between November of 1993 and March of 1994, the Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Orlando Police Department. During this time, the Respondent was assigned to the Southeast Patrol Division during the midnight shift. In August of 1993, Yvette Jolene Bevivino (Bevivino) became acquainted with the Respondent. At the time Bevivino was employed at Shoney's Restaurant on the 1700 block of South Semoran in the City of Orlando as a Dining Room Supervisor. The Respondent would stop by at the restaurant and talk to Bevivino after she got off at work. The Respondent would usually stop by sometime between midnight to 2:00 a.m. to see her. Usually when the Respondent came to visit he was in uniform. There were, however, times when Respondent told her that he was working undercover. There were other instances that while Respondent was talking to her, he received a radio dispatch, and he would have to leave. Between November of 1993 and March of 1994, Bevivino and the Respondent would leave the restaurant area, go to a secluded location, and engage in sexual conduct. Bevivino and the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse on two or three occasions. Bevivino performed oral copulation on the Respondent on one occasion, and she observed the Respondent masturbate on one occasion. Usually the liaisons were initiated by the Respondent stopping by the restaurant when she was getting off work. Bevivino would then follow the Respondent to a wooded area behind Denny's on State Road 436 by the airport. The Respondent was dressed in his uniform on each occasion and was driving an Orlando Police Department vehicle. At least some, if not all, of the sexual encounters were interrupted by the Respondent receiving a radio dispatch. If that occurred, the Respondent and Bevivino would complete the act and the Respondent would leave. The sexual encounters with Bevivino would last from 15 minutes to one hour and 15 minutes. On or about July 25, 1994, Sgt. Paul Rooney was employed by the Orlando Police Department and assigned to the Internal Affairs Division. The Respondent stated to Sgt. Rooney on July 25, 1994, and again on August 8, 1994, that he had been having sexual relations with a female while he was on duty and in uniform. On August 8, 1994, Sgt. Rooney formally interviewed the Respondent, and the Respondent was placed under oath prior to his interview. It was the policy of the Orlando Police Department that officers are available at all times they are on duty, even for meal breaks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993), and that Respondent's certification be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 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 10th day of September, 1997. Paul D. Johnston, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrew J. Sanderson 946 Malden Court Longwood, Florida 32750 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Ivan Carrandi (Carrandi), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 17, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Carrandi. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Carrandi had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Carrandi and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Carrandi filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Carrandi denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Carrandi on January 1, 1985, at which time he freely admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1980 and 1981, while a student at Miami Dade Community College, Carrandi used marijuana approximately two or three times and cocaine approximately two or three times. He has not, however, otherwise used controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Carrandi's background, that Carrandi possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana and cocaine approximately 8 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Carrandi, born November 12, 1960, used marijuana two or three times and cocaine two or three times about 8 years ago when he was 20-21 years of age and a student at Miami Dade Community College. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Carrandi has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Carrandi has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Ivan Carrandi, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) should take disciplinary action against the certificate of Bradley W. Carlton (Respondent) based upon his alleged failure to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, including specifically the requirement that a law enforcement officer have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner on April 7, 1988, and was issued certificate number 12-87-02-03. Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer by the North Palm Beach Police Department in 1989, and was so employed at all times material hereto. Based upon information received by the North Palm Beach Police Department from two informants concerning the alleged use of controlled substances by the Respondent, on and off duty, a Departmental investigation was conducted on September 13, 1989. During that investigation, the Respondent gave a statement denying the use of any controlled substances or the possession of a "one-hitter" pipe as described by the informants. The Respondent also consented, orally and in writing, to a search of his person, automobile and residence, and he was entirely cooperative during these searches. No contraband was found on his person. During the search of Respondent's vehicle on September 13, 1989, by Captain George Warren and Lieutenant Wilbur Walker, a portion of a marijuana cigarette and a one-hitter pipe were discovered inside a red pouch that was obtained from a gear bag located in his vehicle's trunk. The ashtray in the Respondent's car also had an odor of marijuana. A search of Respondent's bedroom was also conducted on September 13, 1989, by Captain Warren and Lieutenant Walker. Although the Respondent had a roommate, his roommate occupied a separate bedroom. This search uncovered contraband in Respondent's bedroom which included a 35mm film canister containing marijuana seeds which was found in a box on Respondent's closet shelf, a portion of a marijuana cigarette in an ashtray on Respondent's desk, a plastic coaster containing marijuana seeds located on a bookshelf near his bed, and a portion of a marijuana cigarette on the Respondent's desk behind a clock radio. The items found on the Respondent's desk and bookshelf were in open view and were not hidden inside other containers. Captain Warren and Lieutenant Walker have the necessary training and experience to recognize and identify marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and the odor of marijuana. The one-hitter pipe found in Respondent's trunk matches the description of the pipe which one informant claims that the Respondent used in her presence. Pipes such as this are typically used to smoke marijuana. The Respondent admitted the marijuana seeds found in the 35mm canister, the bag containing the pipe and portion of a marijuana cigarette, and the ashtray containing the partial marijuana cigarette were all his. He stated that the ashtray had only gone unemptied for approximately one week. He also admitted that the pipe was probably his because at one time he had one just like it. However, Respondent urges that he had forgotten about these contraband items since he had not used them in a long time, and that at all times material hereto, he did not "knowingly" possess these items. Nevertheless, these items of contraband were Respondent's, and they were found in his vehicle and in his residence. Prior to his employment with the North Palm Beach Police Department, Respondent had used marijuana. He admitted to using marijuana as late as 1982 during the polygraph portion of his employment process. On or about September 19, 1989, Respondent took a drug test at the Toxi-Tech Laboratory in West Palm Beach, Florida. The results of that test were negative, meaning that there was no indication of any controlled substance which exceeded the testing threshold level. This test cannot exclude the possibility of marijuana use by the Respondent, but simply establishes that the testing threshold level for marijuana of 100 ng/ml was not exceeded in the Respondent's test sample. Officers Donald Zimmerman and William McArdle received written statements about the Respondent from the two informants, and were also involved with the internal investigation of Respondent which was conducted by the North Palm Beach Police Department. Respondent claims that there was a personal animosity between Officer Zimmerman and himself, and that this may have lead to these informants giving these statements to Officer Zimmerman since he and Officer McArdle knew both informants personally. Officer Zimmerman denies any animosity between himself and the Respondent. Even if it were shown that such animosity existed, which it was not, that fact would not discredit the results of the searches conducted by Captain Warren and Lieutenant Walker, especially in light of the Respondent's admitted prior use of marijuana and ownership of the items of contraband found in his vehicle and residence. The statements of these two informants clearly constitute hearsay, which alone is not sufficient to establish the above findings of fact. They are considered only to support and confirm other direct evidence in the record which consists, specifically, of testimony and documentary evidence concerning the searches conducted of Respondent's vehicle and residence, and Respondent's admissions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking the certification of Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5013 Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adotped in Finding of Fact 3. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 9. Rejected as unnecessary. 10-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 22-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 29-33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on the Respondent's Propsoed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 8, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 8-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 8, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 11. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 12-13. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and immaterial. Rejected as immmaterial and irrelevant. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon D. Larson, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Stephen W. Foxwell, Esquire P. O. Box 11239 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether or not Respondent unlawfully and knowingly warned the subject of an ongoing narcotics investigation with the intent to obstruct the investigation and assist the subject of the investigation, and thereby failed to maintain the qualifications and good moral character required of a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark R. Schlechty, was certified as a law enforcement officer by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on October 5, 1984, having been issued certificate number 35-84-002-03. Respondent was employed by the TPD for approximately four years. Respondent is presently employed as a reservations agent with Eastern Airlines, having resigned from the TPD following the culmination of an internal investigation by the TPD. During the first half of 1987, Respondent was assigned to patrol the downtown Tampa area (Kilo Squad) working the 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. It was customary for Respondent and his squad to eat their evening meal at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Tampa, since it was one of the few downtown area restaurants open to eat after 9:00 p.m. As a result of dining at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Respondent became friendly with several members of the hotel's restaurant staff, including waiters Mark Gotheer and Jeff Stuart. Respondent did not fraternize with Gotheer and Stuart away from the restaurant, although they spoke about meeting to socialize on a number of occasions including going surfing together and staying a weekend at the Hyatt in Orlando to visit Disney's Theme Park. Respondent, as were all members of the TPD, was required to be selective of their acquaintances. Respondent was familiar with TPD's rules and regulations that restrict an officer from associating with individuals known or suspected of engaging in illegal activities. During the spring of 1987, Respondent was unaware of any criminal activity occurring at the Hyatt or that the TPD's vice unit was conducting an active/ongoing drug investigation at the hotel. During the spring of 1987, Respondent's squad leader, Corporal Richard Olewinski, advised Respondent and the members of his squad that some of Hyatt's employees were suspected of dealing in illegal narcotics. Olewinski advised Respondent to be careful with whom he associated because employees Stuart and Gotheer were rumored to be involved in illicit activity at the hotel. Olewinski did not advise Respondent that the information was confidential or that TPD's vice unit was conducting an active/ongoing investigation of such employees. Likewise, Respondent did not consider the information received from Corporal Olewinski to be confidential, instead understanding Olewinski's advice to be a warning that other officers should be careful with whom they associate. As a result of Respondent's association with Gotheer and Stuart, while dining at the Hyatt, Respondent decided to confront them about the rumor based on his concern of being associated with them if they were, in fact, involved in illegal activity. To that end, Respondent approached Stuart on the next occasion that he frequented the Hyatt and inquired of Stuart if he and Gotheer were "dealing in cocaine or doing anything illegal." Gotheer was not at work, however, Stuart denied that either was engaged in any illegal conduct. Respondent also cautioned Stuart that they (TPD) were "looking at this place." Respondent told Stuart that if they were dealing drugs they would get caught and he cautioned Stuart to pass the word on to Gotheer, that if they were involved in any illegal activity, he could not deal with them as they were "bad news". Respondent's concern was to protect himself and admitted that "he did not care how they -- what they did with their personal lives if they use illegal narcotics. But, ... if they were to bring it out in front of me or do it around me, I would take action upon them." Detective Orrill was assigned to conduct an undercover investigation concerning allegations against Gotheer. Orrill met with a cashier at the Hyatt and obtained her assistance in conducting his investigation. During the interim, detective Orrill conducted a background investigation on Gotheer and planned to utilize the cashier to introduce him to Gotheer as her new boyfriend at an upcoming party at Gotheer's home. Within several weeks time, Orrill arranged for the cashier and himself to go to Gotheer's home for a party. On the day of the party, the cashier advised Orrill that she was unwilling to further assist in the investigation as Gotheer advised her of his awareness that he was being investigated by the TPD. Approximately one year later, detective Orrill again had an opportunity to investigate Gotheer. This came about when a detective-trainee under detective Orrill's supervision arrested a subject on narcotics charges. The subject named Gotheer as his narcotics supplier. With the subject's assistance, Gotheer was arrested for possession, in excess of 400 grams, of suspected cocaine. Gotheer agreed to provide information about Respondent's involvement in the 1987 investigation at the Hyatt. Gotheer advised Orrill that in 1987, he received a message from Respondent warning him of the original investigations. As a result of that arrest, Gotheer agreed to assist in the Department's investigation of Respondent by wearing a concealed microphone during an arranged meeting with the Respondent. During that arranged meeting with Respondent on June 6, 1988, Respondent restated his words of caution to Stuart to tell Gotheer to "lay low" because they were looking at the hotel employees and that they were going to get caught if they "f around." Respondent's intent, by sending the word to Gotheer and by advising Stuart to "lay low," was not based on any intent on his part to obstruct an investigation, but was rather to disassociate himself from them if they were engaged in illegal acts. On June 14, 1988, Respondent gave a sworn statement to Sergeant Stephen Hogue and A. Stertzer of the TPD Internal Affairs Bureau. During that statement, Respondent initially denied informing Gotheer either directly or indirectly about an ongoing police investigation directed at Gotheer. Respondent's concern was job retention and to protect himself from scrutiny by either internal affairs or his fellow officers. Respondent subsequently corrected his misstatements in his initial conversation and statement with officers Hogue and Stertzer, of the Internal Affairs Bureau. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4.) Respondent's explanation for his conduct is consistent with his reputation as a police officer with the TPD. In his four years of service with the Department, Respondent has received several commendations and has a reputation of being a good and reliable officer who does not tolerate or condone the use or sale of illegal drugs. In this regard, Respondent was handpicked to serve on the Kilo Squad based on his tough stance on putting drug traffickers off the street. Nothing was introduced to indicate that Respondent was, in any manner, tolerant of drug users. Being a police officer or to be employed in law enforcement is a longtime career goal of Respondent, as his father served as a police officer and he admired his father for the work that he did as a law enforcement officer. In retrospect, Respondent admits that his conduct, in confronting employees Stuart and Gotheer about their drug involvement, may have been "immature and perhaps he did not look at the whole picture." Respondent has now learned a valuable lesson and is desirous of remaining eligible for employment as a law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of July, 1990. Copies furnished: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Post Office Box 11239 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James E. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
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: The Respondent was certified by the Commission on March 1, 1983, and was issued certificate number 06-83-502-01. Prior to January, 1990, the Respondent was employed as a correction officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI). During the course of his training and experience as a correction officer Respondent has become familiar with cannabis and is able to recognize the controlled substance both by sight and smell. Respondent has confiscated cannabis from inmates at TCI at least one hundred times. On January 17, 1990, Respondent went to the Cool Breeze Bar in Seminole County, Florida. On that date, the bar was under surveillance by the narcotics and vice unit as it was thought to be a known gathering place for individuals selling illegal narcotics. As part of his surveillance of the bar, Deputy Shea observed a man later known to be the Respondent passed out in an automobile. The automobile belonged to Respondent and he was its only occupant. When Deputy Shea approached the vehicle he observed what appeared to be a marijuana pipe on the dash of the car at approximately arm's length from the Respondent. On further search Deputy Shea retrieved an envelope containing a substance which he later field tested. That substance field tested positive for cannabis. Deputy Shea's investigation was initiated after he opened the car door and smelled an aroma which he identified with burnt cannabis. After the Respondent was aroused from his sleep, Deputy Shea patted him down and placed him under arrest. The Respondent was disoriented and remained so during the time Deputy Shea searched the vehicle. Respondent had been drinking heavily. Deputy Shea marked the seized items for identification and later sent them to the sheriff's laboratory for additional testing. That testing was performed by Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt weighed and tested the items seized from Respondent's vehicle and determined that the plant material was cannabis and weighed less than 20 grams. Respondent knew on the evening of January 17, 1990, that cannabis had been smoked in his car but claimed he was unaware of the illegal items which others had allegedly left behind. Respondent claimed his cousins had smoked the marijuana in his car while he was in the bar and that he had gone to the vehicle later to sleep off his intoxication. On March 19, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and was adjudicated guilty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3589 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Chavers 113 Scott Drive Sanford, Florida 32771 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983, Walter Taylor (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 66856. On December 23, 19851, Respondent was certified by Petitioner, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 66855. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Riviera Beach Police Department (Riviera Beach PD) as a law enforcement officer. In April 1994, Respondent and his wife were divorced. They had been married 14 years and had minor children. Prior to the divorce, Respondent had several confrontations with his wife regarding her relationship with another man, a Mr. Chilton, whom she had met in or around 1988. During one confrontation in April 1993, Respondent slapped his then wife. At times, Mr. Chilton was present when the confrontations took place. At no time prior to the divorce did Respondent harm or threaten to harm Mr. Chilton. Subsequent to the divorce, Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton continued their relationship. In August 1994, Respondent wanted to attend his family’s reunion in New York but had insufficient funds to take his children with him. Respondent’s ex-wife agreed to attend the reunion with them. With her financial support, everyone could attend the reunion. Respondent and his ex-wife agreed to a pre- arranged time for them to meet on August 11, 1994, and drive to the reunion together. On August 11, 1994, prior to the pre-arranged time, Respondent and his children were packed and ready to leave. Respondent attempted to contact his ex-wife, so they could depart early. He called several places but to no avail. Having failed to locate his ex-wife, Respondent concluded that she was at Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent called Mr. Chilton’s apartment several times only to get an answering machine. He drove to Mr. Chilton’s apartment. By this time, it was approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Chilton’s apartment complex, he observed both Mr. Chilton’s and his ex-wife’s vehicles in the parking area. Respondent knocked on Mr. Chilton’s apartment door but received no response. Having knocked from two to five minutes, Respondent left but stopped nearby at a telephone. He repeatedly called Mr. Chilton’s apartment and again the answering machine answered. Respondent was convinced that his ex-wife was in Mr. Chilton’s apartment and that they were refusing to answer the telephone or the door. Respondent was upset and frustrated. Respondent returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment and began knocking again. The more he knocked, the more frustrated he became. His knocks became harder and louder until he was pounding the door. No one answered the door. Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton were afraid to open the door. At all times, Mr. Chilton and the Respondent’s ex-wife were inside the apartment. The door was locked and the deadbolt was engaged. Becoming more and more frustrated, Respondent hit the apartment door two or three times with both hands, arms raised, palms forward and with the weight of his body behind him. The force applied by Respondent knocked down the door. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment beyond the door frame. He told his ex-wife to come outside with him and talk. She immediately complied. While exiting Mr. Chilton’s apartment, Respondent informed Mr. Chilton to bill him for the door. The door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment was damaged beyond repair and the area surrounding the door was severely damaged. The dead bolt area on the door was bulged. The area on the door jam in which the dead bolt slid had popped and come loose and was indented. The door handle was very loose. The trim on the doorway was split. On many occasions Respondent has been involved in law enforcement raids in which he, personally, has had to break down doors with his body. The method used by Respondent to break down the doors during the raids was not the same method used by him on August 11, 1994. Even though Respondent’s action forced open the door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment, he reacted out of frustration, not with the intent to force the door open. However, Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. He should not have returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment but waited for his ex-wife until the prearranged time. Respondent’s actions could have escalated the situation into a more serious incident. He exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others. The incident was reported to the Martin County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies on the scene took pictures and completed a report. Mr. Chilton did not want to file criminal charges against Respondent but only wanted his door repaired. The Deputies assisted Mr. Chilton in somewhat securing the door, so that it would at least close. Approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 12, 1994, Respondent telephoned Mr. Chilton. Respondent apologized for the damage to the door and agreed to pay for the damage. Subsequently, Respondent telephoned the apartment complex’s manager and agreed to pay for the damage to the door. The cost of the door was $352.99. A payment plan was arranged in which Respondent would pay for the damage in installments. Due to financial constraints, Respondent was unable to comply with the payment plan as agreed upon. The final payment was made on or about February 2, 1995. Respondent had no reason associated with his law enforcement duties to enter Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent was off-duty and out-of uniform. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment without permission or invitation. Respondent is responsible for the damage to the door of Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Prior to the incident on August 11, 1994, in or around June 1994, Respondent received training in Anger Management. On August 3, 1994, Respondent was promoted to Sergeant, on a probationary status, by the Riviera Beach PD. As a result of the incident on August 11, 1994, the Riviera Beach PD conducted a personnel investigation. On January 24, 1995, it issued a notice of intent to take disciplinary action against Respondent -– a demotion from a Sergeant to a Patrol Officer, which included a five percent cut in salary. The disciplinary action was taken by the Riviera Beach PD. On November 2, 1994, Petitioner’s Probable Cause Panel issued Respondent a Letter of Guidance for the act of committing battery (slapping) upon his then wife in April 1993. At the time of the issuance of the Letter of Guidance, Respondent had successfully completed the Probable Cause Intervention Program. The Probable Cause Panel was not aware of the pending disciplinary action against Respondent by the Riviera Beach PD involving the incident of August 11, 1994. Neither Respondent nor the Riviera Beach PD notified the Probable Cause Panel of the pending disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Suspending Respondent’s certification for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of March, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Signe Anthony (Anthony), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately one and one-half years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Anthony. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Anthony had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Anthony and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission'S letter of denial, Anthony filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Anthony denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Anthony on May 9, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had tried marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that on one occasion, at age 13 and while a student in junior high school, Anthony took three or four "drags" from a marijuana cigarette. Other than that one occasion Anthony has not used marijuana or any controlled substance. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission's contention that Anthony's application with the City of Miami for employment as a police officer was denied in 1985 because her pre- employment urinalysis ostensibly proved positive for the presence of marijuana has not been overlooked. However, the proof offered to demonstrate that her urinalysis proved positive for the presence of marijuana was not credible or reliable. Contrasted to such unpersuasive proof was the credible testimony of Anthony that she had used marijuana on but the one occasion during junior high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Anthony's background, that Anthony possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Anthony, currently 26 years of age, used marijuana on one occasion approximately 13 years ago when she was 13 years of age. Such an isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Anthony has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to outstanding, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Anthony has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Signe Anthony, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Albert. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Albert had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Albert and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Steven Albert, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
