Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., has held a Class "s" security guard agency license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Rollins Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Linda Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Linda and Rollins Donald have been the principal owners, corporate officers, and directors of Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., and as such are responsible for the control and operation of the agency. There is no licensed manager for the agency. At all times material hereto, Raymond Curtis Foxwood was an employee of North Dade Security, Ltd. Foxwood has never been licensed as a firearms instructor. An applicant for a statewide gun permit, also known as a Class "G" armed guard license, must submit to Petitioner an application for such license. The application form contains a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency which verifies that the applicant has received the statutorily-required firearms training by a licensed firarms instructor prior to the filing of that application for licensure.- on October 7, 1985, Foxwood submitted to Petitioner on behalf of North Dade Security, Ltd., approximately 20 applications for licensure as unarmed and armed guards. Although Foxwood was advised at that time by one of Petitioner's employees that the applications could not be processed due to the absence of licensure fees and due to deficiencies in completeness, the applicants were sent by North Dade Security to Petitioner's office to pick up their temporary licenses on the morning of October 8. When questioned about their applications, some of the applicants advised Petitioner's employee that they had received no firearms training, although their applications certified that they had. After the applicants were refused temporary licenses by Petitioner, North Dade Security sent the applicants to a gun range where Foxwood administered some firearms training for approximately four hours. Neither Rollins Donald nor Linda Donald was present at that training session. As of October 1985, several other persons employed by North Dade Security as armed guards had received no firearms training in conjunction with that employment. Most of the Certificates of Firearms Proficiency a contained within the applications of those latter employees and of the October 7 applicants were signed by Rollins Donald and by Linda Donald. 11. The numerous applications submitted by North Dadee La Security, Ltd., on October 7, 1985 was occasioned by a large contract entered into by North Dade Security, Ltd. requiring the immediate employment of a large number of armed guards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents North Dade Security, Ltd., Rollins Donald and Linda Donald guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and revoking the Class "B.' license of North Dade Security, Ltd., and further revoking the Class "K" firearms instructor licenses of Respondents Rollins Donald and Linda Donald. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee' Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Room LL-10 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0250 Jackie L. Gabe, Esquire Charles C. Mays, Esquire McCRARY & VALENTINE Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The testimony at the final hearing in this cause was preserved by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by use of the court reporter. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Respondents determined that they would provide a transcript of proceedings for use by the undersigned and would therefore have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded thirty (30) days from the filing of that transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23, 1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties hereto subsequently agreed that that transcript was incomplete, and a complete transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1986. Accordingly, the parties' proposed recommended orders became due to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than October 22, 1986. Respondents filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986. However, Petitioner did. not file its proposed recommended order until October 23, 1986. On October 24, 1986, Petitioner also filed what it considered to be an uncertified "corrected transcript. A series of correspondence and conference calls then ensued due to the Respondents' inability to accept the "corrected~ transcript, and the parties were afforded additional time in which to resolve their differences regarding the September 22, 1986 transcript, which was determined by the undersigned to be the official transcript of this proceeding. By correspondence from Petitioner's substituted attorney filed on February 2, 1987, Petitioner withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to the use of the official transcript filed on September 22, 1986. Since Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed late and no extension of time for the filing of that proposed recommended order was requested or granted, no rulings are made herein on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Although Respondents' proposed recommended order was timely filed, only Respondent's finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Respondents' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony of each witness. ================================================================= FIRST DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NORTH DADE SECURITY LTD. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES CORPORATION, LINDA H. TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DONALD and ROLLINS DONALD, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 97-1350 DOAH CASE NO. 85-4192 Vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 1, 1988. An appeal from an order of the Department of State. Michael J. Cherniga, of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard, C Tallahassee, for appellants. R. Timothy Jansen, Assistant General Counsel, Department of State, Tallahassee, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judgee. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of State (Department) approving and adopting the hearing officer's recommended order holding that the firearms instructor licenses of the individual appellants should be revoked and that the security agency license of the corporate appellant should be revoked. We reverse and remand. The appellants raise, inter alia, the following two questions: (1) Whether the Department's failure to accurately and completely preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of appellants' due process rights, and (2) whether the Department's failure to preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing has materially prejudiced the appellants' rights to judicial review of this cause. At the final hearing in this case the Department attempted to preserve the testimony presented by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by the use of a court reporter. The Department notified appellants prior to the final hearing that it intended to preserve the hearing testimony in this manner, and that appellants would be responsible for furnishing any transcript they might need for review of the hearing officer's findings. Appellants were advised they were free to either hire a court reporter to produce such transcript or that they could use the Department's tapes t make their own transcript. Appellants neither hired a court reporter nor objected to the Department's announcement that it would tape record the proceedings. Unfortunately, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and numerous substantial and material portions of the testimony taken at the hearing were not transcribable because they were not recorded at all, or because the tapes were inaudible or unintelligible. The final hearing was concluded February 18, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants determined that they would provide a transcript of the proceedings for use by the parties and would have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded 30 days from the filing of the transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23,1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) but the parties subsequently agreed that the transcript was incomplete. An allegedly complete transcript was filed with DOAH on September 22, 1986, and the parties' proposed recommended orders were due to be filed no later than October 22, 1986. Appellants filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986 and the Department filed its recommended order October 23, 1986 together with what it labeled a "corrected" transcript. The appellants refused to accept the "corrected" transcript and the parties were afforded additional time to resolve their differences regarding the September 22 transcript. Ultimately, the transcript filed September 22 was determined by the hearing officer to be the official transcript of the final hearing. On February 2, 1987, the Department withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to use the transcript filed September 22, 1986. The hearing officer's recommended order was entered February 25, 1987, and the final order of the agency was entered September 23, 1987, more than one and one-half years after the date of the final hearing. Section 120.57(1)(b)6, Fla. Stat. (1985) provides in part: The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost. The statute requires agencies to accurately and completely preserve all testimony in §120.57(1) proceedings held before them, and this mandatory duty cannot be avoided or escaped by simply advising an opposing party that the agency proposes to preserve the testimony by tape recording and that the opposing party has the right to hire a court reporter. The appellants were entitled to rely upon the Department to accurately and completely preserve the testimony taken at the final hearing, yet review of the transcript herein reveals that the Department failed to perform its duty. There are numerous obvious omissions of substantial and material portions of the testimony received, and the answers to many of the questions posed are incomplete or inaudible. Because of the condition of the record the appellants are unable to obtain any meaningful review of the proceedings. Booker Creek Preservation. Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) are not applicable, as these cases involved a factual situation where the appellant failed to furnish a written transcript although one could have and should have been obtained by the appellant. In this case the appellants made every effort to obtain a complete and accurate written transcript of the testimony but were unable to do so through no fault of their own. As the parties were unable to agree on a statement of the evidence, the appellants are entitled to a hearing de novo. The order of the Department is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo on the petition. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ ., CONCUR.
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds a Class "D" Security Officer license number D92- 03311. The license was issued in 1992. Beginning in 1992, the Petitioner resided with his companion, Tiatiana Aleksandrova, and their children Ruth and Ilia Shuvalov. On December 18, 1992, the Respondent and Tiatiana were arguing and he shoved Tiatiana. Daughter Ruth, 14 years old, was present and saw the incident occur. Apparently attempting to protect her mother, Ruth became involved in the altercation. At the point of her involvement, the Respondent grabbed Ruth by the arm and throat, and pushed her into the kitchen wall. Ruth, much younger and smaller than the Respondent, posed no threat of harm to him. Immediately after the December 18 incident, Tiatiana, Ruth and 12 year old Ilia went to the Gulfport, Florida, Police Department where they discussed the incident with Officer Michael J. Bieluwka. Officer Bieluwka went to the Respondent's home. The Respondent refused to cooperate in the investigation. Based on the accounts of the events provided by Tiatiana and the children, Officer Bieluwka believed he had probable cause to arrest the Respondent. He attempted to effect the arrest at the Respondent's home. As Officer Bieluwka placed the Respondent under arrest, the Respondent pulled his arm from the officer's grasp and attempted to get away from him. The Respondent was charged with resisting arrest without violence. Eventually, the Respondent entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of resisting arrest without violence. On June 22, 1993, Tiatiana and the children were asleep in the Respondent's home. Just before dawn, the Respondent entered the room where Tiatiana slept, kicked her, pulled her hair, and demanded that she get up. Based on the June 22 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. On July 20, 1993, the Respondent had shut off the water line to the house at the main valve. Tiatiana, attempting to bathe, went outside and turned the water back on. An argument ensued outside the house and continuing when they reentered the structure. As Tiatiana stood in the kitchen, the Respondent entered through a screen door. The door closed on and broke a drinking glass he held in his hand. He threw the broken glass towards Tiatiana. The glass struck and cut her right leg just below the knee. Based on the July 20 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. There is no evidence that Tiatiana posed a threat of harm to the Respondent at any time or that she consented to the violence. There is no evidence that commission of violence or use of force on any person was required to protect the Respondent or another person from physical harm.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order revoking the Class "D" Security Officer license of Edward Shuvalov, license number D92-03311, and imposing a fine of $1,500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4482 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent's proposed recommended order is a statement of the financial hardship which will allegedly be imposed if he does not prevail in this case. The Hearing Officer's responsibility is to determine whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The imposition of penalties is governed by the Rules cited herein. The Respondent's proposed recommended order is rejected as legally irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward Shuvalov Post Office Box 5057 Gulfport, Florida 33737
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, an employee of Vanguard Security and the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. Vanguard Security (hereinafter referred to as "Vanguard") is an agency which provides armed and unarmed security services to its clients. Vanguard has a written policy prohibiting the display and use of firearms by its security officers except where such conduct is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm. Vanguard also has a written policy forbidding its security officers from leaving their assigned posts while they are on duty. These written policies are set forth in an employee handbook that all employees of the agency are given. On the evening of October 25, 1993, Respondent was assigned to provide armed security services in a warehouse area in Dade County, Florida. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening Andrea Ramsey was walking her friend's unleashed dog, a Doberman pinscher named "Chewy," in the vicinity of the warehouse area Respondent was responsible for guarding (hereinafter referred to as Respondent's "post" or "posted area"). Chewy's owner, Eileen Escardo, was working late in her photography studio which was located across the street from Respondent's post. Respondent saw Ramsey from afar. His suspicions aroused, he walked toward her to investigate. Respondent left his posted area and started to cross the street that separated the posted area from the warehouse in which Escardo's photography studio was located. When he was approximately 20 feet from Ramsey, he asked her if Chewy, who was by a tree to her left, was her dog. Ramsey responded in the affirmative. Chewy then, in a leisurely manner, headed toward Ramsey and Respondent. Although Chewy was moving in Respondent's direction, he did so in a manner that did not reasonably suggest that he was going to attack Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent panicked. Contrary to his employer's written policies regarding the display and discharge of firearms, he drew his revolver and, when Chewy was approximately three or four feet away from him, fired the weapon, but without any intention of shooting the dog or Ramsey. The bullet hit and shattered the glass door of the business next to Escardo's photography studio. Fortunately, no one was hurt or injured. Ramsey screamed when Respondent fired his revolver. Escardo heard her friend's scream, as well as the shot that preceded it. She rushed out of her studio to see what had happened. Escardo saw Ramsey standing in the middle of the street, with Respondent nearby holding a revolver. After instructing Ramsey to call the police, Escardo walked toward Respondent. Pointing his revolver at Escardo, Respondent warned her to stay away from him. Despite the warning, Escardo, who was unarmed, continued to approach Respondent until she was close enough to push him and the revolver aside. She then turned around and walked toward her studio to wait for the police.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violations of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in alleged Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his Class "G" statewide firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of July, 1994. _ STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of July, 1994.
Findings Of Fact On March 28, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for a Class "D" and "G" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman, Statewide Gun Permit. On May 24, 1990, Respondent, through Marilyn D. Thompson, denied the application based on the provisions of Section 493.319, Florida Statutes. On July 24, 1989, Petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere of the following charges in a proceeding brought against him in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida: Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer; Tampering With Or Fabricating Physical Evidence; and Resisting An Officer Without Violence To His Person. Adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court and he was sentenced to time served with statutory costs being imposed. Petitioner's application did not reflect having entered the nolo contendere pleas to these charges. Petitioner did not appear at the formal hearing to present any evidence in support of his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered which denies the subject application for licensure. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. George Negron 1311 Sharazad Boulevard Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 4, 1994, the Petitioner filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1994, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him of its intention to deny his application. The sole stated ground for denial was described as "[f]ailure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j). You committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of yourself or another." The denial letter also made specific reference to the date of February 21, 1993, and specifically referred to criminal charges allegedly brought against the Petitioner on that date for battery and aggravated battery. With regard to the Respondent's basis for denial, the proof demonstrates that during the early afternoon of February 21, 1993, the Petitioner became involved in an argument with Jessica Favata, an adult female with whom he was acquainted. The intensity of the argument escalated and at one point the Petitioner physically pushed Ms. Favata. At that point a male friend of Ms. Favata, one Bradley Watson, injected himself into the argument. As the intensity of the argument between the Petitioner and Mr. Watson continued to increase, the Petitioner retrieved an aluminum baseball bat from his motor vehicle and began swinging the bat in the general direction of Mr. Watson. During the course of one of the swings of the bat, the Petitioner struck Ms. Favata on the hand with the bat. As a result of being struck by the bat, Ms. Favata's hand was visibly injured. During the course of the events described in the preceding paragraph neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were armed with any type of weapon. Similarly, neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the Petitioner.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact In his application for unarmed guard license, the Petitioner was requested to list all arrests and the dispositions thereof. In response to this inquiry the Petitioner recited that he was arrested in 1973 for discharging a firearm, and that he paid a fine. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner had been arrested and found guilty on numerous occasions from 1942 through 1972 for drunkenness, profanity, burglary, and reckless display of a firearm. He spent time in jail on some of these charges, and time on probation. The Petitioner is a reformed alcoholic. He stopped drinking approximately five years ago, and is now married with two young children. He has had no difficulties with law enforcement agencies since he stopped drinking alcoholic beverages. The Petitioner has made a sincere effort to reform himself, and it appears that he is succeeding in accomplishing that. The Petitioner has been working as an unarmed guard for some months under a temporary permit, and there is no evidence to establish that he has not performed his duties satisfactorily. When the Petitioner was filling out his application for license, he asked a representative of his employer how he should respond. He told the representative that he had been arrested numerous times. This individual told the Petitioner that reflecting the single 1973 arrest was adequate. The Petitioner felt that the inquiry related only to Florida offenses, and most of his law enforcement problems have occurred in the State of Tennessee. It does not appear that the Petitioner willfully falsified the application, but rather that he was mistaken, partially as a result of information that was given him by a person he was entitled to believe would understand the question.
Findings Of Fact Based on the documentary evidence received, the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 18, 1982, Mr. General G. Foreman, Petitioner herein, was advised that his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses had been denied based on "fraud or willful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license." Chapter 493.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner timely applied for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, concerning the denial of his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses by the Division of Licensing. 1/ Documentary evidence herein reveals that the Petitioner has been arrested ten times during the period April, 1950 through May, 1982. On Petitioner's application filed during approximately July, 1982, he listed two arrests during the period March, 1955 through approximately November, 1970. Petitioner listed (on the subject application) a trespassing charge which occurred during April, 1950, the outcome of which resulted in a conviction, and during November, 1969 or 1970, a rape charge which was "thrown out, dismissed." In the processing of applications for guard licenses, the Respondent conducts background investigations through fingerprint checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other local law enforcement agencies. The Respondent reviewed a "rap" sheet from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and based on a consideration of the ten (10) occasions which the Petitioner had been arrested, an administrative determination was made that the Petitioner failed to fully disclose arrests. For that reason, Petitioner's application for the above-referred guard licenses was denied. (Testimony of Debbie Richards, Respondent's guard license application investigator). The Petitioner listed the tow charges which "bears" on his mind and the other arrests were not listed since they had no "bearing on his mind." Petitioner contends that he made no effort to "hide" anything. Further, Petitioner related that he, to this date, is unable to recall, with any specificity, the exact number of times that he has been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for statewide Class "D" and "G" security guard licenses. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 15, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1991, Respondent performed the services of a security guard at a Best Western Motel in Orange County, Florida, As such he was employed by the motel. While performing the services above noted Respondent carried a 9mm Berretta automatic pistol in a holster external to his clothes. While performing the above-noted services Respondent's firearm was unloaded and he had hollow point 9mm shells in his pocket. While performing the above-noted services Respondent held neither a Class D nor Class G license. Respondent was performing the services of security guard while substituting for a relative who was ill. Respondent was working solely for the motel and was not associated with any security guard agency. The motel manager had requested that Respondent carry a unloaded firearm because several crimes had been committed in the vicinity of the motel. Respondent believed that as an employee of the motel, as contrasted with being employed by a security guard agency, Respondent did not need a security guard license. Further, Respondent believed he had a Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to overtly carry the firearm in the holster outside his clothing. At the time of this hearing Respondent was unemployed.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 11, 1998, alleges that when Respondent, upon termination of his employment, failed to return his identification card and uniform items to his employing agency, he committed violations of Section 493.6111(5)(c), Florida Statutes, and Section 493.6118 (1)(f), Florida Statutes. The issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed those violations and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul Alan Sangster, holds a class "D" Security Officer License No. D92-16595, effective November 3, 1996. While so licensed, on or about January 8, 1997, Respondent was hired as a security officer by Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. (Southland). Jill Murphy, the human resources director for Southland, hired Respondent and issued him items required for his employment. On January 8, 1997, she issued him a uniform shirt and trousers, a shirt badge and collar brass; on January 17, 1997, she issued him another shirt and an identification card; and on January 24, 1997, she issued him another shirt badge. Each time he was issued uniform items, Respondent signed and dated a uniform inventory sheet with this statement: By affixing my signature below, I am accepting receipt of uniforms and/or equipment for my official use. I understand that I am fully responsible for uniform clothing and/or equipment and will pay the full replacement cost on each item that is not returned when requested. I also understand that this uniform and/or equipment is the sole property of Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. I further agree that within five (5) days of termination of my employment, I shall return the uniforms cleaned and pressed, as I received it, or shall pay the cost of such cleaning and pressing. In the event I fail to return any part of my uniform or any equipment, I agree to pay the company the full replacement cost as indicated above plus all attorney's and collectors fee incurred in the recovering said cost. (Petitioner's Exhibit A) Mrs. Murphy terminated Respondent's employment on or about March 8, 1998. He had told her that he got another job. When Ms. Murphy later tried to reach Respondent, she was told that his phone was disconnected and she was never able to reach him. Respondent never returned the uniform items and identification card to Southland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the agency issue its final order finding that Respondent violated Sections 493.6111(5)(c) and 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, when he failed to return his uniform and identification card to his former employer, and assessing an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Paul Alan Sangster 352 Buttonwood Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Debbie Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Michele Guy, Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
