The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement and correctional officer, stole money from inmates, in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent on March 22, 1993, as a law enforcement officer and issued her certificate number 135498. Petitioner certified Respondent on July 25, 1995, as a correctional officer and issued her certificate number 156433. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed by the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. On October 12, 1995, deputies of the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office arrested Ernesto Estepes and escorted him to the Clewiston Substation. At the substation, Mr. Estepes turned over to a deputy $132 in cash and other personal items, including a watch and wallet. Deputies later transported Mr. Estepes to the Hendry County jail, where the $132 and other personal items were transferred. The booking officer received all of the items, including the cash, and turned them over to Respondent. Four days later, when deputies went to find the items, including the cash, to return to Mr. Estepes, they found that everything was missing, including the property receipt that the jail booking officer had completed. Respondent stole Mr. Estepes’ property, including the cash. The property was never recovered. On October 29, 1995, Hendry County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Jose Ramos. They escorted him to the Clewiston Substation, from where he was later transported to the Hendry County jail. The deputy who transported Mr. Ramos received from Mr. Ramos $112.04 in cash and other personal items, consisting of a gold Citizen quartz watch, silver chain, leather belt, and wallet. The deputy completed a property receipt for these items. At the jail, Respondent handled the booking process, which included receipt of the inmate’s property, including cash. Shortly after Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail, Respondent substituted a fraudulent property receipt for the actual property receipt. The fraudulent receipt stated that Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail with only the clothes he was wearing and was unable to sign the receipt. Respondent took the property and cash with an intent to derive Mr. Ramos permanently of these items. Mr. Ramos was released shortly after his arrest, but was not given his property. Deputies searched the jail, including the booking area, but were unable to find the property. Shortly after a thorough search had been completed, the property, except for the cash, reappeared in the booking area, which had been searched previously to no avail. The property items were returned to Mr. Ramos. The Hendry County Sheriff’s Office reimbursed the cash to the two inmates. Respondent resigned prior to the completion of the internal affairs investigation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the law enforcement and correctional certificates previously issued to Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Anne Dox-Haynes 1447 Ford Circle Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue Whether the memorandum petitioners challenge amounts to a rule improperly promulgated? Whether the rules petitioners challenge are arbitrary and capricious or are otherwise beyond the authority delegated to respondent? STANDING STIPULATED At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. O'Donnell stated a motion ore tenus to strike paragraph five of the petition, in which the memorandum was challenged, on grounds that a challenge to the memorandum was premature, quoting the memorandum: "[T]he limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984." After argument, the hearing officer was persuaded that the challenge was not premature on its fact, inasmuch as inmates with "items no listed . . . or an excessive amount of property" must decide whether to dispose of property before April 1, 1984, or suffer its confiscation; since nothing further was required for the memorandum to be efficacious; and since failure to enforce a rule does not alter its character as a rule. After the motion to strike was denied, Mr. O'Donnell stipulated, on the record, that standing was not in issue. He nevertheless argues in respondent's "proposed findings of fact-- conclusions of law--final order," as follows: Knowing the issue of standing as to the memo to have been put at issue by Respondent, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to place into the record some indication of impact. Having failed to do so, Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the memo. State v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). 9. The issue of the adverse impact of the memo is crucial to a proper determination of whether the memo is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. * * * The memo, rather than adversely affect inmates, may not have any substantial impact on Petitioners. Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. Again, Petitioner entirely failed to introduce evidence on this point. This argument is precluded by Mr. O'Donnell's stipulation on the record at the hearing. Having stipulated that no proof was necessary to show the impact of the memorandum, respondent cannot now be heard to complain of the absence of proof on that point. Mr. O'Donnell also stipulated that the memorandum was not promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact It is clear from its title that the memorandum is meant to apply only to Union Correctional Institution. The body of the memorandum, dated February 1, 1984, provides, in full: The attached 1/ is a list of the type and quantity of inmate property authorized at UCI. Inmates may also possess items sold by the Canteen, items received through an approved Package Permit, items authorized to be in cells as part of the Hobbycraft Program and items issued by the state. Property Quantity limits are necessary to prevent fires and control insect infestation. In addition, they provide a standard for both inmates and staff to follow in determining if an inmate's amount of property is excessive. Since many inmates have accumulated property for a long time, the limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984. Inmates who have items not listed in this me[m]orandum or an excessive amount of property should begin making arrangements to send items out of the institution. Inmates who need to dispose of property should send a request to Sgt. Singletary, Property Officer. Items may be mailed somewhere or placed on the Main Gate for pick-up by a visitor. Your cooperation in reducing the amount of excess property yourselves, prior to April 1, 1984, will be greatly appreciated. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. It is signed by D. E. Jackson, Colonel, Correctional Officer Chief II, and P. V. Gunning, Assistant Superintendent of Operations. Dennis Dean Cooper is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. In the month or two preceding the hearing, prison personnel confiscated wax, a wooden mallet, a hammer, a knife and rubber glue, all belonging to Cooper, who had acquired them, after gaining approval to do so, in connection with the Hobbycraft program. Guards searched from cell to cell and filled a 50 gallon barrel with items they took from Dean's cell alone. Kenneth Hayes' right eye was injured in a boxing accident. A governmental agency set up to assist the blind issued Hayes, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, a green tape cassette recorder which prison personnel seized on January 19, 1984; they also took the stool he had made with approved Hobbycraft materials. That was the same day, or perhaps the day before, William Joseph Goens, an inmate house in the Main Housing Unit at Union Correctional Institution, lost his inlaid wooden chessboard in a "shakedown." Another inmate, Clayton, had given him the chessboard. Goens later saw the chessboard in a trash barrel in the back of a dump truck. Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution and housed at 3T8, John Richard Clayton also lost property in the January 1984 shakedown, including Hobbycraft items, personal letters and letters from his attorney bearing on the proceedings eventuating in his incarceration. He is skilled at leather working and sometimes has temporary possession of other inmates' leather goods for purposes of effecting their repair. An electric fan which an inmate transferred to another institution had given Clayton before leaving was also confiscated. When prison personnel proposed to confiscate John McConnell's legal papers, if he did not dispose of them himself, he called several lawyers. Eventually he was issued a metal locker to which he transferred his legal papers from the cardboard box that had held them. No papers were ever confiscated. Petitioner Carl Cribbs, also confined at Union Correctional Institution lost two, bound folders containing legal documents, including 13 affidavits, as well as an electric fan, when these items were confiscated by prison guards on January 19, or 20, 1984. Radios and electric fans are registered as a means of identifying them. They are treated as contraband except when they are in the possession of the inmate to whom they are registered. If an inmate lends property to another inmate, it may become contraband subject to confiscation, regardless of the type of property involved. These practices protect inmates from theft, which is rampant at Union Correctional Institution. Guards and inmates alike are subject to "shakedowns" without notice as a means of controlling the flow of contraband. Under the right circumstances, virtually any property in an inmate's possession might be seized. At one time inmates were permitted to have matches and buy honey from the canteen in glass jars. After they began hurling empty honey jars at one another, the canteen switched to plastic containers for honey, and glass jars of all kinds were treated as contraband and confiscated. Inmates are still allowed cigarette lighters, but matches have been contraband ever since the authorities learned that new equipment in the shop made it possible for the inmates to manufacture zip guns. On the other hand, inmates are allowed Hobbycraft items, under ordinary circumstances, including X-acto knives. These knives have blades less than an inch long, but could be lethal if used as a weapon. If an inmate if found guilty of a rule infraction and subjected to administrative confinement, his property is confiscated. If an inmate attempted suicide, even his clothes might be removed. Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland, confined at Union Correctional Institution at the time of the hearing, had legal papers confiscated while he was at Baker Correctional Institution, but eventually recovered them pursuant to court order. Douglas L. Adams and Joe Lewis Holland v. Department of Corrections ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, et al., No. AV-483 (Fla. 1st DCA; December 13, 1983). At Baker Correctional Institution everything that did not fit into a bed locker was treated as contraband. David Watson, Assistant Superintendent at Florida State Prison, has been ordered by the fire marshall to cause large cardboard boxes of papers to be removed from the prison. Some items seized as contraband are burnt. Others are given to the Boys' Ranch or the inmates' welfare fund. All Florida prisons have storage rooms and inmates are ordinarily issued lockers, but there are physical limits on how much personal property can be stored at Union Correctional Institution or any other prison. Too many things in prisoners' cells make for problems with sanitation and insect infestation.
The Issue Whether Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6, concerning inmate canteen coupon books, is an "unpromulgated rule" within the meaning of Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, rendering it an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are prisoners Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, a prison operated by the Department the agency responsible for the state prison system. The parties stipulated that petitioners are Substantially affected by the challenged Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6. Petitioners, who initially challenged several operating procedures and directives, have confined their attack to Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-6. This Operating Procedure, issued February 16, 1962, and revised October 2, 1981, Is titled "Inmate Canteen Coupon Books" and issued over the signature of the Superintendent of Union Correctional Institution. As authority for its issuance, two policy and procedural directives are referenced, neither of which is in evidence. The stated purpose of this Operating Procedure is: To establish the approved medium of exchange for inmates assigned to Union Correctional Institution; To establish procedures for obtaining coupon books for use in the Canteen System; To place responsibility for distributing and accounting for Canteen coupons; To place limitations upon inmates use of coupon books; To establish procedures for redemption of coupon books; and To identify disciplinary action relative to misuse of coupon books. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) Paragraph 81-6.3A expresses the main policy of the Operating Procedure: A. Canteen coupon books shall be the approved medium of exchange for inmates at Union Correctional Institution. Currency, coins or other negotiable instruments in the possession of an inmate are contraband. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) This Operating Procedure announces and purports to set Department policy for Union Correctional Institution. Canteen coupon books are declared to be the only approved medium of exchange for inmates. Currency, coins or other negotiable instruments in the possession of inmates are declared contraband. All currency, coins or negotiable instruments are removed from new inmates and credited to their individual trust accounts. Thereafter, inmates may draw up to $20.00 per week from their trust accounts, but only in the form of coupon books. Coupons may be redeemed in the canteen system but loose coupons will not be accepted. Inmates may not possess more than $25.00 worth of coupons--any excess is declared contraband. This Operating procedure also includes details regarding coupon books, coupon distribution, and coupon redemption. Finally, inmates are warned that failure to comply with the Operating Procedure may constitute a violation of institutional rules for which, presumably, sanctions may be imposed. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1) This written Operating Procedure applies to all inmates at Union Correctional Institution. It applies prospectively, and dictates the medium of exchange for inmates at the institution. It purports, in and of itself, to create rights and affect others; it is virtually self-executing, no exceptions or discretion in implementation is allowed. By its tone and language, it speaks with the force of a rule of law. The Department concedes that this operating procedure has never been adopted as a rule in accordance with the rulemaking procedures of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner testified in his own behalf, admitting that he had failed to answer Question 13, "Have you ever been arrested?" honestly. He stated that he had been embarrassed to put down the fact that he had been arrested. He stated that he had applied for the position as an unarmed security guard with Oxford Security Services thinking that it would be a temporary position. However, since his employment he has been promoted to safety coordinator, salesman and supervisor/operations manager of the company's operations in the Jacksonville area. The applicant was first employed in June of 1979. He stated that he needed to be licensed in order to maintain his present position. The applicant explained his arrest in 1963 and in 1977. His arrest in 1963 was for larceny and arose from taking money belong to the company by which he was employed and purchasing a car with it. The court withheld adjudication and placed the applicant on probation for five years. During that time he married and left the State of Florida in violation of the terms of his probation. In 1977, the applicant was employed in Jacksonville, Florida, as a used car salesman. After a 24-hour sale-athon, the applicant began bar-hopping and ended up in a topless go-go club. His next conscious recollection was waking up in the Duval County jail, where he was advised that he was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct. He had no knowledge of the conduct which gave rise to his arrest. The Duval County court advised the applicant to enter a plea of nolo contendere and be transferred to Miami court for disposition of the applicant's offense of parole violation. The Duval County court sentenced the applicant to two days for lewd and lascivious conduct, during which time he was transferred to the Dade County courts. The charges of violating parole in Dade County were dismissed. The applicant further explained his arrest for passing a worthless bank check. The applicant stated that he had overdrawn his account unknowingly in 1971. He was arrested and paid off the overdraft, and the charge was dismissed. The applicant stated that his employer was not aware of his arrest record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant's application for a Class F, unarmed guard license be denied; however, that the applicant be afforded the opportunity to refile his application with full disclosure, and that in the absence of any other disqualifying grounds said reapplication be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Wayne M. Chadwick 865 Lane Avenue, #703 Jacksonville, Florida 32205 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact I find the following facts based on the facts admitted by both parties in the Prehearing Stipulation filed on May 22, 1987. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33, as found in the Florida Administrative Code Annotated, through the March 1987 supplement, is true and correct. The Petitioner's current address is Douglas M. Jackson, Inmate Number 823916, Florida State Prison, Post Office Box 747, Starke, Florida 32091. The Respondent's name and address is Florida Department of Corrections, 1311 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500. The Department rule on which an administrative determination is sought is Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007, "Inmate Grievance Procedure." The statutory provision on which the above Department rule is based is Section 944.331, Florida Statutes, which states: The department shall establish by rule an inmate grievance procedure which shall conform to the Minimum Standards for Inmate Grievance Procedures as promulgated by the United States Department of Justice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s. 1997e. The ten (10) days in Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007(13), which deals with the filing of appeals of grievances, are "10 calendar days." This can include two weekends (a total of four days) when mail is not normally picked up at the prisons or delivered in the Office of the Secretary. If an inmate receives his institutional response on a Friday that is dated for the previous day (Thursday), his response must be received in Tallahassee by the following Friday. (The second Sunday following would be ten (10) days from the date of the institutional grievance, but the Central Office Inmate Grievance Administrator does not work on Saturday or Sunday to receive and log inmate grievance appeals). Florida Administrative Code Rules 33-3.007(6)(a) and (7) require the availability of grievance forms at all Department institutions. If the inmate needs a day to obtain a grievance appeal form and prepare it, he will not be able to mail his appeal until Sunday. But, there is no mail service on Sunday so his grievance appeal will not be mailed until Monday at the earliest. This means the grievance appeal must get from the prison to the Office of the Secretary in four (4) days or it will be denied as out-of-time. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007(8) provides that: An extension of the 15-day period [to file at the institutional level] will be granted when it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate to the satisfaction of the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent that it was not feasible to file the grievance within the 15- day period. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007(15), which covers the filing of the grievance appeal, imposes an absolute requirement of ten (10) calendar days. No possibility exists under the rule, as promulgated, for the slightest extension of time for any possible reason, no matter how meritorious it might be. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007 does not inform the inmate that he must utilize the grievance procedure to exhaust his administrative remedies before he can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the loss of gain time or confinement as a result of a disciplinary proceeding. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007 has been submitted to the United States Department of Justice for certification approval under the provisions of Section 944.331, Florida Statutes and 42 U.S.C. s. 1997e. Florida Administrative Code Rules 33-3.0025(11)(c), 33-3.012(1)(b)3, 33-3.012(4)(e), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33-22 have not been submitted to the United States Department of Justice for certification approval.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon 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 the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue Whether Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact A. Standing. The Petitioner, Peter B. Dolinger, is not incarcerated by the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is, therefore, not subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an independent paralegal who owns and operates a sole proprietorship specializing in prisoner related issues. The intended scope of the Petitioner's business is to include research and pleading preparation for licensed members of the Florida Bar; agency representation before state agencies, in a qualified non-attorney representative status. The Petitioner, while representing an inmate in an unrelated administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Archie White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92-2392RXP, sought the release of the inmate's records from the Respondent. The request was denied by the Respondent pursuant to Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Archie D. White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92- 2392RXP, is no longer pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Final Order was entered in that case in June, 1992. The Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency required to adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (9) When it is reasonably believed that a party may divulge information contained in the files of the department to an offender, the department shall restrict release of any information to that party. The Petitioner has alleged that Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, "facially fails to establish an adeqaute [sic] standard for agency decisions. In other words, a person of common intelligence may imply the utilization of a 'reasonable' etst [sic] or standard thstb [sic] differs in totality from thst [sic] of another, most notably in the absence of definition, guidelines or policy on the standard to be applied."
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain the minimum qualifications for employment or appointment as a law enforcement or correctional officer by failing to exhibit good moral character and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement responsible for the execution, administration, implementation, and evaluation of the powers, duties, and functions established under sections 943.085 through 943.255, Florida Statutes, and is charged with certifying and revoking the certification of correctional officers in Florida. § 943.12, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 943.1395, Petitioner is authorized to investigate incidents in which certified correctional officers are alleged to have failed to maintain compliance with the minimum qualifications for certification, and to take disciplinary action against correctional officers found to have failed to maintain those qualifications. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, and holds Correctional Certificate Number 77370. He was initially certified on April 9, 1987. During the period from his initial certification up to 2007, Respondent rose through the ranks, achieving the rank of captain. In 2007, as he neared his date of retirement, Respondent requested a voluntary demotion to sergeant. The duties associated with being a “correctional officer in charge” were causing difficulties with his marriage, and his voluntary demotion to sergeant allowed him to “lay out the last five years so I could use my leave up easier and kind of have a life.” Respondent has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary action, nor was there any allegation of prior disciplinary history involving Respondent. On March 1, 2010, Respondent served as a correctional officer at the Lowell Correctional Institution. Respondent knew Tracy Coer as an inmate at the Lowell Correctional Institution. Respondent occasionally tasked inmate Coer, along with other inmates, with cleaning the correctional officers? supply room and staff bathroom at the end of a shift. Respondent testified that such activities were never done without another officer present in the officer station. On the evening of March 1, 2010, Respondent was assigned to escort inmate Coer from her dormitory to the medical unit for a breathing treatment. The medical unit has an exterior door, with a clear window described as being “about six inches long and . . . maybe about a foot and a half tall.” The exterior door led into a waiting room, which contained bench seating for inmates. A second secured door led from the inmate?s waiting room into the medical facility. Directly inside the second secured door was a desk for a monitoring correctional officer, which had a clear view into the inmate waiting room. From the dormitory to the medical unit, Respondent and inmate Coer were in view of the guard tower. Respondent intended to turn inmate Coer over to the custody of the monitoring correctional officer on duty and leave. When Respondent arrived at the medical unit, there was no correctional officer on duty at the waiting room monitoring desk.2/ Therefore, Respondent transferred custody of inmate Coer directly to medical staff. Since the monitoring officer was not at her post, Respondent stayed in the waiting room. After about 30 minutes, inmate Coer was returned by medical staff to the inmate waiting room. The monitoring officer had not returned to her duty station, and the waiting room was vacant, but for Respondent and inmate Coer. The time was about 9:25 or 9:30 p.m. It was dark outside, but the sidewalk was lit by security lights. It is Respondent?s practice to always be in view of another correctional officer when with a female inmate. However, for the period after inmate Coer was placed into Respondent?s custody in the waiting room, and before they exited through the exterior door, they were not in direct view of medical staff, the guard tower, or any other correctional officer. Respondent testified that as he was preparing to escort inmate Coer from the medical unit and return her to her dormitory, she became “off balance.” In Respondent?s experience, breathing procedures can make persons “dizzy and lightheaded.” He did not want her to fall, so Respondent grabbed inmate Coer?s jacket sleeve to steady her. She turned towards him, whereupon he grabbed her other sleeve to hold her up. According to Respondent “we came in close proximity at that time and shortly within like seconds I heard the door opening and I turned and looked over my right shoulder and Officer Richardson was standing in the door.” Respondent denied that he kissed inmate Coer, that he tried to kiss inmate Coer, or that he ever tried to kiss any inmate. Officer Richardson testified that she was returning to the medical unit from outside, and was preparing to enter the facility through the exterior door. She looked through the window, and saw Respondent and inmate Tracy Coer “holding hands and he leaned down to kiss her. It was like a lip to lip peck maybe.” She testified that she was able to see lip-to-lip contact between Respondent and inmate Coer. Her description gave a clear impression of a consensual act, with Respondent and inmate Coer holding hands, and inmate Coer in “a leaning upward motion so it?s not really unbalanced, but her face was leaning up.” After the incident, Officer Richardson testified that she reported what she observed to a fellow officer, and then to her captain. She was instructed to fill out an incident report describing her observations, which she did. Her incident report is consistent with and supplements her testimony. After submitting the incident report, Officer Richardson had no further involvement in the investigation of the incident until her testimony at the hearing. Officer Richardson testified that she had a clear view of the inmate waiting room, and of Respondent and inmate Coer, through the 6” x 18” window. Respondent testified that the windows consist of thick security glass, and that “[w]henever you approach one of those small windows at night, the reflection from the security lights, the shadows that are moving . . . [y]ou can?t see as clearly as you think you can.” Inmate Coer did not testify at the final hearing. Instead, Petitioner submitted an affidavit of inmate Coer describing the incident that forms the basis of the Administrative Complaint. The affidavit is hearsay. Inmate Coer?s affidavit could be said to supplement and corroborate Officer Richardson?s testimony in that they both describe an incident that culminated in a kiss. However, the affidavit described an act that was sudden, abrupt, and against inmate Coer?s will, while Officer Richardson described a more intimate and consensual act. Therefore, the affidavit does not serve to establish a firm belief or conviction in the mind of the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, but rather suggests a degree of imprecision or confusion as to the facts in issue.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent’s law enforcement certification should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, David G. Delisle, is a certified correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate No. 67615 on August 31, 1992, by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission). When the relevant events herein occurred, respondent was employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer at the Duval County Pre-Trial Detention Facility (detention facility). In an administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996, the Commission charged that (a) on May 30, 1995, respondent “engage(d) in an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” (b) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “receive from an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling paper;” (c) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling tobacco;” (d) on June 17, 1995, respondent engaged in “an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” and (e) on June 17, 1995, respondent “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: food.” Respondent disputed these allegations and initiated this proceeding. At final hearing, petitioner voluntarily dismissed item (c). During respondent’s tenure as a correctional officer at the detention facility in 1995, James M. Bonner and James Barbour were inmates under his supervision. In May of 1995, respondent approached inmates Bonner and Barbour and offered them tobacco products, including rolling paper, and other considerations if they would “beat up” certain inmates, including one Max Harrison, who were “causing trouble,” for respondent. The purpose of such action was to cause those inmates to transfer out of the cellblock thereby relieving respondent of having to deal with them. In the case of inmate Max Herring, respondent wanted Henning to leave the cellblock because he was allegedly a homosexual. Bonner and Barbour agreed to beat up Herring and other unidentified inmates. On June 19, 1995, Bonner, Barbour and several other inmates, tied inmate Herring to a bed with sheets and began striking him with “flip-flops” and shower shoes. Herring suffered abrasions and bruises on his body. Bonner confirmed that, at the request of respondent, several other inmates, none of whom were identified, were also beaten. In return for these favors, respondent provided inmates Bonner and Barbour with extra portions of jail food, extra food brought into the facility from outside establishments, magazines, cigarettes, rolling paper, and radio privileges. Although not specifically identified at hearing, certain "regulations" of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office prohibit a correctional officer from furnishing such goods and services to inmates, and the introduction of illegal contraband into a jail violates state law. On at least one occasion, respondent received tobacco products and rolling paper from Bonner to give to other inmates. This also violated an unidentified facility rule as well as state law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order determining that respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and required by state law and that his law enforcement certificate be revoked.DONE AND ENTERED this 24th date of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark P. Brewer, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. David G. Delisle 5350 Arlington Expressway, No. 3902 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent, a police officer, violated section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to introduce, take, or attempt to take contraband into the Hamilton County Jail for an inmate of the jail, so as to result in a finding that Respondent has not maintained good moral character; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement responsible for the execution, administration, implementation, and evaluation of the powers, duties, and functions established under sections 943.085 through 943.255, Florida Statutes, and is charged with certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. § 943.12, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 943.1395, Petitioner is authorized to investigate incidents in which certified law enforcement officers are alleged to have failed to maintain compliance with the minimum qualifications for certification, and to take disciplinary action against law enforcement officers found to have failed to maintain those qualifications. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, and holds Law Enforcement Certification Number 313297. She was initially certified on January 8, 2014. On March 11, 2019, Respondent served responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Admission. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that her responses were accurate. As discussed at the final hearing, and as reflected in the preliminary statement, Requests for Admissions 1 through 17 were accepted. Respondent has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary action. On February 28, 2017, Respondent was employed as an officer with the City of Jasper Police Department. On that date, Respondent was in a romantic relationship with Derrick Harris. On the morning of February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris turned himself in on an active warrant for what was apparently a misdemeanor offense in Duval County, and held in the Hamilton County Jail in Jasper, Florida. On February 28, 2017, from roughly 10:00 a.m. to roughly 4:35 p.m., Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke by telephone on nine separate occasions, for a total of roughly one hour and 50 minutes.2/ In addition, Respondent visited Mr. Harris in the jail visitation area, separated by glass and using a telephone handset, from 10:23 a.m. until 10:53 a.m. Thus, during the day, Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke for about two hours and 20 minutes. Much of the discussion between Respondent and Mr. Harris centered on how he would be able to come up with a $3,500 cash bond to get him released, and getting money put on the phone so he could make calls from the jail. During telephone call 713077714, which started at 2:17:32 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Respondent was upset that Mr. Harris’s mug shot had appeared on an unofficial website. She was also upset that a rumor was going around that she was responsible for Mr. Harris’s arrest. The tone of her voice ranged from angry to upset to tearful. During the call, Mr. Harris complained of being hungry. It was not the first time he made that complaint. He also stated, “I wish I had a cell phone -- if I had a cell phone I’d talk to you all night.” After a brief discussion, initiated by Mr. Harris, of how Respondent could slip a sack of Arby’s and a phone in her police vest, the idea was quickly shot down, with Mr. Harris stating that “I don’t want you to do nothing to jeopardize your job.” The entirety of the discussion lasted scarcely more than 90 seconds, and quickly reverted to a continuation of the discussion of how to raise bond money. Neither Arby’s nor a cell phone was brought up again. Respondent testified convincingly that “I didn’t -- I really didn’t plan on actually taking [anything in] -- I was just explaining over the phone because I was upset.” Her testimony is accepted. Idle chatter does not manifest intent to commit a crime, nor does it evince an agreement to do so. The evidence in this case establishes clearly, and it is found that Respondent had no actual intent to bring Arby’s or a cell phone, to Mr. Harris at the jail, that Respondent and Mr. Harris made no agreement to do so, and that she did not attempt to do so. Captain Bennett established that the Hamilton County Jail has: standing policy as per the Sheriff. When we come -- when an inmate comes into the jail facility, and they are indigent and don't have any money on them at the time, or they come in before commissary has arrived, he allows for a one-time initial issue, if there is someone that can bring underwear, socks, T-shirts, boxers, soap, deodorant, and basically hygiene items as for someone to, you know, be able to survive in the jail setting for -- you know, until they can get money there. Because everything else after that is usually purchased off of commissary, sir. Mr. Harris was new to the jail. He stated on several occasions during his conversations with Respondent that he did not have any “canteen.” Thus, despite the fact that “clothing” is listed as an item of contraband in section 951.22(1), and that Petitioner pled Respondent’s conspiracy to introduce clothing as an element of the second Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence firmly establishes that Respondent’s delivery of underwear, t-shirts, socks, and hygiene items to the jail for the benefit of Mr. Harris was done through regular channels as duly authorized by the Sheriff or officer in charge. During the course of telephone call 71307815, which started at 3:15:45 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris can be clearly heard, on more than one occasion, asking jail staff what could be brought to him. The replies of jail staff were indistinct. However, Mr. Harris told Respondent that he could have socks, a t-shirt, deodorant, and the like. It was reasonable, based on Mr. Harris’s recitation, for Respondent to (correctly) understand that clothing, including socks and a t- shirt, were authorized by the correctional officer in charge. Mr. Harris stated that the correctional officer “didn’t say nothing about food.” He suggested that Respondent bring a couple of packs of ramen noodles and “see if they’ll let you give them to me.” Later during that call, Mr. Harris stated that Respondent would have “to ask them could I get the noodles.” It is clear that Mr. Harris wanted some ramen noodles, and that Respondent was willing to bring them. It is equally clear from the evidence as a whole that neither Respondent nor Mr. Harris intended to introduce the ramen noodles, or any other item, into the jail without permission from the correctional officer in charge. In order to avoid bringing anything improper into the jail, Respondent decided, “I’m going to message Captain Bennett over the Facebook because I was friend with him on Facebook. And I asked him what was allowed to be brought in.” At 4:07 p.m. on the afternoon of February 28, 2017, Respondent sent a direct message to Captain Bennett asking (verbatim): Would i be able to bring him some soap and deodorant and something to eat in there If they gonna pick him up for transport will i be able to see him before he go? Captain Bennett responded that “You can take him some soap and deodorant. I’m sure they will if the bond isn’t posted. Will have to see what’s going on about a visit.” The first and third sentences of the response are fairly straightforward, and directed towards Respondent’s first request (soap and deodorant), and her last request (a visit). The second sentence is ambivalent if not confusing, and could reasonably be understood to her second request, and to mean that jail staff would allow Respondent to bring Mr. Harris some food “if the bond isn’t posted.” In the context of the questions asked by Respondent, that is the most logical meaning, since soap and deodorant and a possible visit were already specifically addressed. Respondent gathered some items, including boxers, t-shirts, socks, body wash, deodorant, and the like, and placed them in a plastic bag with several packages of ramen noodles. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal the noodles. Respondent took the plastic bag to the jail. She drove her personal vehicle and was not in uniform. She tapped on the glass behind, which the correctional officer on-duty sat, and asked the correctional officer if the items could be taken to Mr. Harris. Respondent did not ask to take the bag to Mr. Harris herself. A correctional officer came from within the secured area, “and took out of the bag what was allowed in there.” There was no testimony as to which of the items, including the ramen noodles, made their way to Mr. Harris, and which, if any, were returned to Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent was not trying to, and did not attempt to introduce contraband into the jail outside of regular channels and without the actual knowledge and authorization of the correctional officer in charge.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2019.
