Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral argument adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts: In November of 1983, the Captiva Erosion Prevention District (CEPD) submitted an application from the DER to construct an experimental "on-site stabilization system along 650 feet of Captiva Erosion Prevention District. The application listed Petitioner Arthur Learned, president, Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. as authorized agent. Drawings attached to the application show a location plan, a site plan and a plat. Each drawing is on Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. letterhead and is signed by Arthur Learned. The application noted that the project was "ex* NOTE: The continuation of words on this paragraph line are unreadable as viewed in the original document on file in the Clerk's Office and therefore not available in this ACCESS document. judged harmful, can be undone." 3. A Joint U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application Appraisal was performed* NOTE: The continuation of this paragraph along with pages 3 and 4 of the original document on file in the Clerk's Office are not available therefore not included in this ACCESS document. limitations of authority of resident project representative." Petitioner notes in a letter to the CEPD that said duties are in addition to those normally provided by the Engineer as Owner's representative during construction. Among the listing of the duties of a Resident Project Representative (RPR) is a provision which states that through more extensive on-site observations of the Work in progress and field checks of materials and equipment by the RPR and assistants, ENGINEER shall endeavor to provide further protection for OWNER against defects and deficiencies in the Work; but the furnishing of such services will not make ENGINEER responsible for or give ENGINEER control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures or for safety precautions or programs, or responsibility for CONTRACT0R's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. At some point in February of 1986, the DER discovered that concrete had been used in a portion of the stabilizers. Petitioner met with the DER staff concerning this permit violation, and explained that concrete, rather than sand, was placed in the bags due to changed conditions. Petitioner was told that any change in design needed approval from the DER. By letter dated February 28, 1986, Petitioner requested a modification of the permit to include the substitution of concrete intersection as stabilizer tie-in and filler. The after-the-fact permit modification was granted by letter dated May 26, 1986, addressed to the petitioner. The modification allowed the use of concrete-filled bags to construct the most landward portion of the six permitted groins to a maximum length of 13 feet from the landward connection. It did not permit concrete bags beyond the 13 foot distance. On or about March 6, 1986, petitioner completed a Certificate of Substantial Completion for the Sand Core Filter Beach Stabilizers, indicating the date of substantial completion to be February 16, 1986. Prior to the modification authorized on May 26, 1986, the petitioner received a letter from DER dated March 24, 1986. This letter notified Mr. Learned that the permit did not authorize placement of concrete within the permitted sand bags, and that, in order to correct the outstanding violations, the concrete material must be removed from the sand bags. Petitioner was request to remove all sand bags that contained cement within fourteen days. Based upon DER's prior correspondence with petitioner Learned during the permitting process, as well as its investigation, on-site inspections, meetings, telephone conversations and a sworn affidavit from the Chairman of the CEPD regarding the CEPD's lack of knowledge of noncompliance with the conditions of a similar Department of Natural Resources' permit, DER staff believed that petitioner Learned (along with the contractor) was the responsible party in the decision to use concrete in the sand bags and that the CEPD relied upon the petitioner and the contractor to adhere to permit conditions. The DER did not review the contract documents regarding petitioner's services to the CEPD prior to instituting proceedings against the petitioner. On August 5, 1986, the DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action against Erosion Control Systems, Inc. and Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. The Findings of Fact contained therein recite that Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. and Erosion Control Systems, Inc. are the agent and contractor respectively for the CEPD. Violations of Chapter 403 were found and specific corrective actions were proposed. The corrective action to be taken was the removal of all concrete bags waterward of the 13 foot mark, the refilling of said bags with sand, the removal of any bags containing asphalt and the return of all disturbed areas to pre-removal conditions. Learned Engineering and Erosion Control Systems were also to make payment to the DER in the amount of $392.60 for expenses incurred in investigating the matter. On March 16, 1987, DER issued an Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action. This document named the Captiva Erosion Prevention District, Erosion Control Systems, Inc. and Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. as respondents, and noted that CEPD was the permittee, that petitioner Learned was the authorized agent on the project for CEPD and that Erosion Control Systems was the project contractor employed by CEPD. The Amended Notice is substantially similar to the initial Notice, but adds a further violation regarding the use of turbidity curtains during construction. It also adds a Count charging that Respondents Learned and Erosion Control conducted dredging and filling activities without a valid DER permit. The Orders for Corrective Action are identical to the initial Notice. DER subsequently resolved its dispute with the CEPD and, on March 11, 1988, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Erosion Control Systems and petitioner Learned Engineering. At the time of the initial Notice Of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, petitioner was a for-profit corporation under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Venice, Florida. Due to financial difficulties caused, at least in part, by the DER's actions in the enforcement proceeding described above, Arthur Learned, President of Learned Engineering, closed the Florida office, semi-retired and moved to Georgia. Learned Engineering relocated to Georgia on January 1, 1987, and now has its principal place of business in Blairsville, Georgia. It does still maintain contacts in Florida and has recently performed other work in Florida. At all relevant times, Petitioner has had less than 25 employees and a net worth of less than $2,000,000.00. Petitioner incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,127.07 in defense of the administrative proceedings described above.
The Issue The issues in this instance are promoted in keeping with an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, charging violations of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes. These allegations relate to the claim that Respondent was involved in a liaison with a prostitute in which he exchanged Valium for sex. The encounter between the Respondent and the prostitute is alleged to have occurred while the Respondent was on duty. This Valium was allegedly obtained from an automobile which was examined as part of the Respondent's duties as a law enforcement officer. It is further alleged that the Valium should have been turned in as part of his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a holder of a certificate as law enforcement officer, Certificate No. 98-10527. That certificate is issued by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and Respondent has held that certificate at all relevant times in this proceeding. Respondent has been employed as a police officer by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department in the relevant time period and it was during that tenure that Respondent is accused of having committed the offense as set forth in the administrative complaint. Debbie Ofiara is the only witness to the Respondent's alleged indiscretion while on duty. Ms. Ofiara is an admitted prostitute, who has drug problems so severe that she required specific program treatment to address them. In particular, that drug difficulty relates to the drug Dilaudid. In addition, Ofiara has served six months in jail for grand theft, a felony conviction. At the time of the alleged incident with the Respondent she was under the influence of drugs and was under the influence of drugs when she reported that incident to a police investigator in the Daytona Beach Police Department. When testimony was given at the hearing, Ofiara was attending a drug program while awaiting a sentence for a drug offense related to cocaine. She had pled guilty to that drug charge, a felony. Ofiara has been arrested for prostitution, arrests made by the Daytona Beach Police Department on three different occasions. She had been arrested for hitchhiking by Officer Cadenhead prior to the incident which underlies the administrative charges and indicates that she "took offense" at the arrest. Moreover, she acknowledges some past concern about her treatment in encounters with Officer Gary Gallion of the Daytona Beach Police Department in his official capacity. Ms. Ofiara claims that sometime in November 1982, in the evening hours, the Respondent, while on duty as a police officer, in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, approached Ofiara and made arrangements to meet her. She further states that this rendezvous occurred in Daytona Beach, Florida, and that in exchange for Valium tablets which the Respondent had obtained from an examination of a car he had been involved with in his police duties, which tablets were not turned in, Ofiara performed oral sex for Respondent's benefit. Some time later, Ofiara related the facts of the encounter with Officer Cadenhead to an internal affairs investigator with the Daytona Beach Police Department, Lieutenant Thomas G. Galloway. She also gave Galloway a bottle which she claimed was the bottle in which the Valium was found. The vial or container was not examined for any residue of the substance Valium or examined for fingerprints of the Respondent. Following Galloway's investigation of the allegations, the Daytona Beach Police Department determined to terminate the Respondent from his employment. That termination was effective February 11, 1983. Respondent was subsequently reinstated after service of a four-week suspension without pay by order of the City of Daytona Beach Civil Service Board, effective March 9, 1983. Having considered the testimony of Ms. Ofiara and the testimony of the Respondent in which he denies the incident with her, and there being no corroboration, Ms. Ofiara's testimony is rejected for reasons of credibility. As a prostitute, drug user, felon and person with a certain quality of animosity toward the Respondent and in consideration of the demeanor of the accusing witness and Respondent, her testimony is rejected.
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1989, petitioner, Donald Ray Ballard, filed an application with respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) for a Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "C" private investigator's license. Pertinent to this case, the application, which was attested to by petitioner, averred that he had never been convicted for any violation of the law. By letter of February 8, 1990, the Department timely denied petitioner's application predicated on its contention that petitioner had been convicted of four felonies on April 28, 1980, to wit: sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine, possession of a short barreled rifle, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing, which contested the fact that he had ever been so convicted, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At hearing, the Department introduced into evidence certified copies of a judgment, order and commitment entered by the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, on April 28, 1980, and bearing Case No. 79-2970 CF B 02. Those documents reflect that one Donald Ballard entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sale of cocaine (Count I), possession of cocaine (Count II), possession of a short barreled rifle (Count III), and possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Count IV). The documents further reflect that such person was found guilty on Counts I and II and that imposition of sentence was withheld, and that adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld as to Counts III and IV. As to each count, such person was placed on probation for a period of 5 years, to run concurrently with each other, under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner denies that he and the Donald Ballard so charged and convicted are the same person. Officer Stephen Lobeck, the officer who arrested the person charged and convicted, as heretofore discussed, identified petitioner within a 90 percent degree of certainty as the same person he arrested. Melanie Eggleston, who was employed as a probation parole officer with the Florida Department of Corrections from 1980 until April 1985, positively identified petitioner as the same Donald Ballard she supervised as a probationer following his conviction for drug dealing. Given such credible identification, and the fact that the term of probation for the person she supervised was due to terminate in April 1985, it is more likely than not that the respondent is the same Donald Ballard who was convicted on April 28, 1980, as heretofore discussed. In concluding that respondent was so convicted on April 28, 1980, it has been unnecessary to consider the arrest record of the Sheriff's Office, Palm Beach County, Florida, for August 3, 1979 (Respondent's exhibit 3, page 2) or Officer Lobeck's arrest report (Respondent's exhibit 2). These documents are hearsay, as discussed supra at footnote 3, but due to the provisions of Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes, are, nevertheless, admissible in administrative proceedings to supplement or explain competent evidence. Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 495 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Here, the persuasive testimony of Officer Lobeck and Ms. Eggleston, provided competent proof of petitioner's identity as the Donald Ballard who was convicted on April 28, 1980. Were the arrest record considered, as supplementing that proof, it would be supportive of the ultimate conclusion reached. In this regard, the arrest record identifies the subject as Donald Ray Ballard; his local address as 149 Granada Drive, Palm Springs, Florida; his occupation as disabled veteran; his date of birth as December 2, 1931; his social security number as 240-40-4932; and his general description as that of a white male, height 5'7", weight 144 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, and medium complexion. Petitioner's general description is grossly consistent with the description contained in the arrest record, his residence address at the time was 149 Granada Drive, Palm Springs, Florida, and he is a disabled veteran. Further, while the identification petitioner produced at hearing referenced a date of birth of December 3, 1931, the proof also reflects that he had, on other occasions, been attributed with a date of birth of December 2, 1931. Specifically, the two DD214 forms he attached to his application to evidence his military service, as well as his transcript from Indiana Technical College, reflect a date of birth of December 2, 1931. Finally, petitioner's social security number has been variously reported as 240-40-4937 and 240-40-4937A. But for the last digit, petitioner's social security number is consistent with the social security number contained on the arrest record. 4/ On balance, the arrest record is supportive of the competent proof which identified petitioner as the Donald Ballard convicted on April 28, 1980.
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 a Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "C" private investigator's license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March 1991. 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 27th day of March 1991.
Findings Of Fact Born September 3, 1956, Stephen Darryl Hand holds police certificate No. 02-18775. Respondent Hand was employed as a police officer by the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department from July 3, 1977, to December 21, 1979. On December 22, 1979, he began working for the Melbourne Police Department, which he left in February of 1980, at the Police Chief's behest. In the fall of 1978, respondent was entrusted with the keys to the evidence locker at the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department. After Officer Martin came into possession of $14,990 in cash, it was stored in the evidence locker. Although seized in suspicious circumstances, the money was labeled as abandoned property, and not as evidence. Two weeks or so before he left Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, respondent stole fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) from the cash in the evidence locker. This was the first time that he had been custodian of a large amount of cash. During respondent's final week with the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, he and his replacement were directed to count the money again. Respondent then reported a shortage of $1,500 to Lt. Ferguson, without revealing that he had taken the money himself. He had used it for various personal purposes, including $250 he paid for the benefit of his sister. Lt. Ferguson reported the missing money to Chief Fernez who encouraged all personnel to take polygraph tests. Many resented this suggestion and morale problems arose. The theft made the local papers. When respondent, who was by that time employed by the Melbourne Police Deportment, was originally scheduled for a polygraph examination, he feigned illness and declined to take it. After Chief Fernez contacted Chief Miller of the Melbourne Police Department, however, he submitted to a polygraph examination, during which he denied knowing what had happened to the $1,500 he had recently spent. Some time later, respondent told Sergeant Keller of the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department that he had found the missing money among some papers at home. Respondent made full restitution before criminal charges were filed. On March 6, 1980, he pleaded guilty to grand theft, second degree and, on May 20, 1980, was placed on two years' probation, adjudication of guilt being withheld. Sixteen law enforcement officers testified on behalf of respondent to the effect that respondent was a good police officer who should be given a second chance even though he was guilty of an offense none of them could condone. Similarly, petitioner's witnesses commended respondent's conduct as a police officer, apart from the theft of a large sum of cash from the evidence locker, and the lying afterwards. To the extent that proposed findings of fact in petitioner's proposed recommended order have not been adopted in substance, they have been rejected as not established by the preponderance of the evidence or deemed irrelevant, after careful consideration.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke the certificate it issued to respondent, No. 02- 18775. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 19th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Corrigan, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen Darryl Hand 105 Elm Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
The Issue Whether respondent's license to practice optometry should be disciplined on charges that he failed to comply with, or violated, a lawful order of the Board of Optometry.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent was licensed as an optometrist, having been issued license number 0001338 by the Board of Optometry (P1, P2). On January 28, 1981, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Optometry which applied to respondent and his license to practice optometry. The Final Order, which resulted from a disciplinary proceeding against respondent, provided in pertinent part: That Respondent's license be suspended for a period of three months, to be served from February 5, 1981 to May 4, 1981, or immediately upon the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. During the period of suspension the Respondent may not hold himself out as an optometrist or practice optometry. That Respondent pay a fine of $500.00 for each count of the Administrative Complaint, for a total of $2500.00 to be paid as ordered in the imposition of probation on the Respondent. That the Respondent serve a period of probation of three years, which shall commence on May 5, 1981, or three months after the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. The terms of the probations shall be as follows: The Respondent shall obey all laws and regulations of the State of Florida. The Respondent shall inform the Board of any change of his address, including his residence address and all locations at which he practices optometry. The Respondent shall appear before the Board to report on his activities in six months and semiannually thereafter. The Board shall give the Respondent notice of those meetings held at or near Miami, Florida at which the Respondent should appear. The Respondent shall pay the fine of $2500.00 imposed by February 5, 1982, or one year after the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. (e.s.) Respondent appealed this Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, which upheld the order. Respondent then filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied by order of the Court, dated January 13, 1982. On January 21, 1982, respondent filed a motion for stay with the Florida Supreme Court, which motion was later withdrawn. (Testimony of Gardner, P-5, R-1, R-3). By letter dated January 22, 1982, respondent asked for permission to appear before the Board of Optometry on February 6 and 7, 1982, and further requested that the order, which he had unsuccessfully appealed, be stayed pending his appearance. When he appeared before the Board of Optometry on February 6, 1982, asking for a less severe penalty, the Board's attorney advised that due process had transpired and that the Board had no further jurisdiction to reopen the case. The Board took no action. (Testimony of Gardner, R-1, R-3) Under the Board's Final Order, respondent's license to practice optometry was effectively suspended from January 28, 1982 (15 days after the Third District's denial of his petition for rehearing), until April 28, 1982. This suspension commenced immediately upon the completion or lifting of all intervening legal processes. Under Rule 9.340, Florida Rules of Appellate procedure, that event took place 15 days from the Court's order denying rehearing. (Testimony of Gardner, P-2, R-1, R-3) Under paragraph 3.d) of the Final Order, the $2,500 fine became due and payable on January 28, 1983, one year after the lifting of any stay or the completion of the intervening legal process. Respondent, however, failed to pay the fine by January 28, 1983. (Testimony of Gardner, P-2, P-3) On or about March 8, 1983, Mildred Gardner, Executive Director for the Board of Optometry, sent a "bill" to respondent indicating that the payment of respondent's fine was past due. (Testimony of Gardner, P-4) On or about March 22, 1983, respondent paid, by check, the $2,500 fine to the Board of Optometry. The check was subsequently cashed by the Board without express reservation or protest. (Testimony of Gardner, respondent, P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be administratively fined $500 for violating Section 463.016(1)(s), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. 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 7th day of December, 1983.
