Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against the criminal law, from vagrancy on December 31, 1958, to gambling on May 3, 1976. He has been convicted in the courts of three states on various charges, including assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, carrying a concealed weapon, destroying city property, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, non-support, possession of dangerous drugs and possession of marijuana. In addition, he was arrested for and charged with assignation and vagrancy; and posted bonds which were forfeited. According to a personal questionnaire petitioner filled out on March 16, 1978, petitioner is single; he has been employed at the same place since 1976; and he has lived at the same address since 1974.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should he permitted to take the CPA examination for licensure with the State Board of Accountancy. The Petitioner appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and therefore was advised as to his rights in administrative proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. He indicated that he understood these rights and desired to represent himself during the proceedings.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 1978, Respondent received from the Petitioner an application for permission to take the certified public accountant examination for state licensure. In answer to question 15 of the application form as to whether he had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, Petitioner answered "Yes" and submitted an accompanying letter which stated that he had been convicted on a plea of guilty to a charge of accepting a gratuity and that he had received a suspended sentence with two years probation. He further noted in the letter that although he was a member of the New York Bar during that period, no action had been taken against him for disciplinary reasons by chat organization and that he had' lived a clean and exemplary life since that time. Three individuals certified on Petitioner's application as to his good moral character and integrity, and he listed three others who would submit character references on request. (Exhibits 1-2) On May 1, 1973, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 70Cr.653, Petitioner, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201 and 2 in that being a public official, to wit, a Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly and indirectly, did ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive and agree to receive things of value, to wit $2,000, because of official acts to be performed by him in connection with an investigation." Petitioner was sentenced to a two-year period of confinement which was suspended and was placed on probation for like period. (Exhibit 4) Incident to its processing of Petitioner's application, Respondent received a letter from his probation officer stating that court records indicated Petitioner had been "seriously involved over a long period of time in numerous bribery and attempted bribery situations while working as a special agent for the IRS." However, the officer stated that petitioner had presented no problems while on supervision, made a satisfactory adjustment, and was terminated from probation on April 30, 1975. (Exhibit 4) Respondent's executive director testified that no inquiry had been made into the character references supplied by Petitioner on his application due to the fact than the amount of time to process applications for the May examination did not provide sufficient time to do so. However, he also testified that such references are not routinely investigated in processing applications. By letter of March 4, 1978, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that his application to take the May, 1978, CPA examination had been denied for failure to comply with Section 473.08(1)(c), F.S., in that "you were convicted on charges of `accepting a gratuity as an IRS agent, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 201(g)'." (Testimony of Thompson) Petitioner testified that he served as an investigative agent in the Internal Revenue Service for a period of seventeen years prior to his retirement for medical disability. He conceded that he was asked to resign from that employment due to the fact that he was being investigated for some 20 to 30 alleged instances of activities similar to that for which he was convicted. He was employed by accounting firms in New York for a number of years prior and subsequent to his employment with the Internal Revenue Service. He has been employed with an accounting firm in Florida since February, 1978. In 1974, he served as Chancellor, Knights of Pythias, in New York. He believes that he has been rehabilitated and should be permitted to take the State CPA examination. (Testimony of Kronish, Exhibit 1) Respondent does not have a consistent position on dealing with applications involving prior convictions, but considers each case on its individual merits. In cases where an application has been denied for such a reason, Respondent normally permits the applicant to appear before it personally if he files a second application. (Testimony of Thompson)
Recommendation That Petitioner Harry T. Kronish be permitted to take the next examination for the purpose of determining whether he shall be permitted to practice in this state as a certified public accountant. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Harry T. Kronish 4533 Jefferson Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
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, Wayne Martin Dean (Dean), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 24, 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 Dean.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 Dean 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 Dean 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 sold cannabis and have possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Dean filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Dean 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, Dean initially applied with the County for employment as a correctional officer in 1983. During the course of the pre- employment interview on that application, which occurred on August 30, 1983, Dean divulged that he had used marijuana so frequently as not to be able to recall the number of times he had used it, and estimated that during the course of the preceding twelve months that he had used marijuana 500 times. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Dean started using marijuana while in high school and that following 1979, when he dropped out of school, that such use gradually escalated until it reached the level of abuse noted in 1983. As a consequence of such disclosure, the County denied Dean's application for employment. Following the denial of his application, Dean resolved that if he were to ever better himself, it would be necessary to disassociate himself from the use of controlled substances. As a consequence, Dean has not used any controlled substance since November 1983. In 1985, Dean reapplied with the County for employment as a correctional officer. During the course of the pre-employment interview on that application, which occurred on March 19, 1985, Dean again conceded that he had previously used marijuana so frequently as not to be able to recall the number of times, but that the last time was in November 1983. Dean also divulged that he had used cocaine approximately three times in his life, the last time being in early 1983, and that he had sold marijuana three or four times, the last time being in early 1983, from which he had made about $15. 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 possess the requisite moral character for employment. 4/ Here, Dean, born November 14, 1962, used marijuana extensively for the twelve-month period preceding November 1983, last used cocaine in or about March 1983, and last sold marijuana in or about March 1983. In light of such protracted and frequent use, Dean's application for employment should have been denied as having failed to evidence the requisite good moral character necessary for employment as a correctional officer. While Dean's application for employment should have been denied in 1985, this proceeding is a de novo hearing on his application for certification, and his qualifications are, therefore, evaluated as of the date of hearing. To date, Dean has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost four years. His annual evaluations have all been 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, Dean has demonstrated that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer. While he did use controlled substances until his twenty-first birthday, his resolve to disassociate himself from such practice is supported by the proof. Under such circumstances, Dean's contact with controlled substances over five and one-half years ago is not persuasive proof of bad moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Wayne Martin Dean, 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 of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer on April 6, 1984, and has been continuously so certified since that time. After the Tampa police arrested Doug Jernigan in August, 1986, on charges of armed robbery committed between January and July, 1986, including bank robberies, the Tampa police learned that on July 18, 1986, Jernigan rented a limousine and visited several bars with one of his companions being a police officer. When this information was passed to the Bureau of Internal Affairs, an investigation was started, and it was learned that Respondent was the police officer involved with Jernigan on the evening of July 18-19, 1986. Thereafter, the investigation centered on Respondent's knowledge of Jernigan and any criminal offenses of which Respondent may have been aware. During this investigation, Respondent cooperated fully with the investigators, including the taking of a polygraph test, and two or more taped interrogations. In addition, the investigator interrogated the chauffeur of the limousine, Jernigan, and at least one other passenger who was in the limousine on July 18, 1986. All of these witnesses denied that any drugs were used in Respondent's presence, stated that the party continued for several hours during which time the four people involved consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and that all were quite intoxicated. Respondent was only casually acquainted with Jernigan who he had seen as an employee of the Temple Terrace Bar on previous occasions. On July 18, Respondent encountered Jernigan at the Temple Terrace Bar as a patron who told Respondent that he had hired a limo for the evening and invited Respondent to join him for some drinks. Jernigan had a large roll of bills which he told Respondent he had won at the gambling table at Atlantic City. Respondent joined Jernigan, and they proceeded to another bar where a third and perhaps fourth companion was picked up. The limo then drove the new companion (McGahee) to his residence to change clothes, and while McGahee and Jernigan were let off, the driver took Respondent to Respondent's apartment to change clothes, waited for him, returned to pick up Jernigan and McGahee, and then they proceeded on the bar hopping escapade. The investigation by the Internal Affairs Division disclosed that Respondent had no knowledge of the crimes Jernigan had committed between January and July, 1986. During a second interrogation of Respondent which continued for two hours by an experienced investigator, Respondent was repeatedly told that the other occupants of the limo had acknowledged use of drugs during the night of July 18-19, and that the polygraph exam showed Respondent was not telling the whole truth about his knowledge of Jernigan's criminal activities and of the use of drugs on July 18. Respondent, after earlier denying that any drugs were used in his presence, finally acknowledged that maybe a joint (of marijuana) was passed around in the limo, but that he never took a puff. Once Respondent acknowledged during this two hour interrogation that maybe marijuana was smoked that evening, this became a fact in all further questioning of Respondent regarding his knowledge of Jernigan's criminal activities and further questioning regarding the use of cocaine on that evening. Respondent steadfastly denied any knowledge of any other activities of Jernigan or that he ever saw anyone use cocaine on July 18-19, 1986. James McGahee was one of the passengers in the limo July 18-19. Either he or Jernigan had some that evening, and when they were dropped off at McGahee's apartment for McGahee to change clothes, they ingested some cocaine. McGahee does not smoke marijuana, and to his knowledge, no marijuana was used in the limo that evening. McGahee operated a heavy duty wrecker and had seen Respondent on several occasions at the scene of an accident to which McGahee and his wrecker had been called. He had never socialized with Respondent prior to or since July 18- 19, 1986. Respondent denies that, to his knowledge, any marijuana or other drugs were used in his presence on the evening of July 18-19, 1986, and that his sworn statement taken during his two hour interrogation that a joint had been passed around in the limo was not true. He gave the statement because the interrogator had convinced him the other passengers had admitted using drugs, and he assumed they had done so. To Respondent marijuana was deemed less serious than cocaine.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, is the legal entity responsible for certifying law enforcement officers in Florida. Respondent, Gary W. Anderson, was certified by Petitioner on September 23, 1987, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 49406. Respondent was employed by the Brevard County Sheriff's Office for sixteen years as a deputy sheriff and attained the rank of corporal. During 2001 and 2002, Jennifer Cobb, the alleged victim, worked as a waitress at Applebee's restaurant approximately four or five nights a week. She often served food and beverages to various law enforcement personnel who consistently frequented the restaurant. Respondent dined and socialized in the establishment approximately three times per week during Ms. Cobb's tenure at Applebee's. Ms. Cobb admits that she and Respondent had a friendly, congenial relationship. She admits that she regularly hugged Respondent as well as other deputies when she saw them. In December 2001, Ms. Cobb complained to her stepfather, Deputy Webster, that Respondent had inappropriately slapped her buttocks and had pulled her ponytail towards his lap. Although Deputy Webster was a friend and subordinate to Respondent, the evidence demonstrates that shortly thereafter, following a routine briefing meeting, Deputy Webster approached Respondent and requested him to refrain from any inappropriate touching of Ms. Cobb. Deputy Webster admits, however, that Respondent did not respond in any way to his verbal request and is not certain whether Respondent actually heard his request. Notwithstanding her complaint to her stepfather in late 2001, Ms. Cobb continued to hug Respondent when she saw him. In April 2002, Ms. Cobb saw Respondent at Brevard Community College and approached him. Although Respondent was engaged in conversation on his cell phone, Ms. Cobb hugged him and then released to depart. Ms. Cobb alleges that Respondent pulled her belt towards him while he was on the phone in an apparent effort to see down her pants. Respondent admits that he does not recollect tugging at her belt, but firmly denies that he intended to look down her pants. He argues, that he may have touched her waist to signify that he was releasing the call and wanted her to remain so they could talk. Ms. Cobb admits that, during the alleged incident, she did not object to or even address Respondent's alleged inappropriate behavior. Ms. Cobb admits that she often initiated the hugs with Respondent and was always friendly towards him. She claims that she tolerated his "touchy" behavior, but a few times requested Respondent to stop the behavior. Respondent admits that they routinely hugged and were friendly, but denies that she ever appeared uncomfortable or even broached the subject. Respondent contends that their physical contact was always friendly and denies ever touching Ms. Cobb in an inappropriate manner. In May 2002, Ms. Cobb filed a complaint with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. Respondent was immediately suspended and advised by command staff to avoid Applebee's during the investigation. Respondent was demoted from the rank of corporal and removed from the SWAT team. During the internal affairs investigation, Inspector Vitek investigated Ms. Cobb's complaint and interviewed many witnesses. Respondent was placed under oath and provided sworn testimony to Inspector Vitek. Respondent denied the allegations made by Ms. Cobb. Specifically, during his second sworn interview, on May 22, 2002, Respondent denied that he touched Cobb's buttocks, denied that he pulled her hair to his crotch, denied that he pulled out her pants at Brevard Community College, and denied that Deputy Webster had requested him to stop his behavior with Ms. Cobb. Inspector Vitek concluded that Respondent was being untruthful. Sheriff Williams provided Respondent an opportunity to recant his denials in his predetermination hearing and Respondent declined. Thereafter, Sheriff Williams concluded that Respondent was being untruthful and terminated him. The case was reviewed by the Civil Service Board which upheld the investigation and sustained the untruthfulness finding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The allegations against Respondent are unfounded; Respondent did not fail to maintain good moral character; Respondent's certification be restored immediately. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Woodham, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 8738 Belarado Court Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
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, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 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 Morales 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 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales 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 carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales 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 Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. 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. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, 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, Morales 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, Alfonso Morales, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James A. Detzel, age 40, was born in Miami, Florida, and he lived there until sometime during his junior high school years when he went into the United States Marine Corps. He subsequently earned and received a GED diploma from high school. At age 19 the Petitioner began to get into trouble with the law. He was arrested and convicted in Atlanta, Georgia, for armed robbery in 1960, and served a two year sentence. Between this occurrence and the year 1968 he was arrested and convicted three more times, for robbery, escape while serving the robbery sentence, and for possession of burglary tools. In 1968 the Petitioner was arrested for breaking and entering-grand larceny in Dade County, Florida, and sentenced to 15 years. He served nine and one-half years, and received a conditional release in 1976. A conditional release is the same as parole, but the Petitioner had previously violated parole and was not again eligible to receive parole. Thus, he received the conditional release. In October of 1981, the Petitioner's conditional release was terminated, after it had been satisfactorily completed. During the years, the Petitioner has also been arrested and convicted of breaking and entering-petit larceny, receiving stolen property, and larceny of an automobile. At the present time, however, he has paid his debts to society on all of these charges. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not yet had his civil rights restored, although he is apparently eligible to apply therefor. The Petitioner contends that he has been rehabilitated, and thus is now eligible to be licensed as a repossessor. He is married and has two children. He is buying a home in Tampa. He has been steadily employed since 1976, and is now working as repossessor in Tampa. His employers have found him to be reliable and trustworthy employee. The Petitioner has not been in any trouble with the law since 1968, and he has a satisfactory work record since his release from prison. The Petitioner has been honest and loving with his wife and family. He is a changed man now, his wife contends, and is a good family provider. The Petitioner's Parole Officer confirms that his life seems to have become stabilized now.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James A. Detzel for a Class E (Repossessor) License, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 5 day of February, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 5th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard S. Blunt, Esquire 112 South Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106 Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE JAMES A. DETZEL, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 81-2847S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Respondent. /
