The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' stipulations, 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, the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. He has held the former license since May of 1990 and the latter license since September of that year. He has never before been disciplined by the Department. From October of 1991, until June 23, 1993, Respondent was employed by Certified Security Services, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as "Certified"), a business which provides armed and unarmed security services. Among Certified's clients during the period of Respondent's employment was Winn-Dixie Store No. 343 (hereinafter referred to as "Store 343"), located at 14900 Northwest 6th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Respondent was assigned by Certified to work as a uniformed security guard at Store 343. He regularly drove a cashier at the store named Maria home from work in his car. On the afternoon of June 23, 1993, at around 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., Respondent was standing in the store parking lot conversing with a patron of the store, Sylvia Malgarejo, when he was approached by Maria, who was carrying a package containing a box of Pampers and a bottle of cooking oil. Respondent had no reason to, nor did he, believe that Maria had misappropriated these items from the store. Maria asked Respondent to put the package in his car. Respondent complied with Maria's request. He then continued his conversation with Malgarejo. The conversation did not last long. Olga Campos-Campbell, the store's general merchandise manager, had reported to the store manager that Respondent had shoplifted merchandise from the store. Campos-Campbell and Respondent had an ongoing feud concerning the scope of Respondent's job responsibilities. Campos-Campbell frequently asked Respondent to do things that he believed were outside the scope of his duties as a security guard, and an argument between the two invariably ensued. Based upon Campos-Campbell's erroneous report, the store manager had Respondent detained. Kent Jurney, who assisted the owner of Certified, his wife, in running the business, was contacted and advised of the situation. Jurney responded by going to the store with Certified's general manager, Bill Banco, and confronting Respondent. Respondent's native language is Spanish. Jurney, on the other hand, does not speak or understand Spanish. He communicates in English. Respondent's ability to communicate in English, however, is limited. Respondent tried to explain to Jurney in English how he had come into possession of the Pampers and cooking oil, but Jurney misunderstood him and mistakenly thought that Respondent was admitting that he had stolen the items from the store. Accordingly, he advised Respondent that Respondent's employment with Certified was being terminated effective immediately. The police were also contacted. The police officer who responded to the scene cited Respondent for shoplifting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint and dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 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 14th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-6941 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of facts" proposed by Respondent in his post-hearing submittal: 1. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 2-5. Rejected as findings of fact because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony elicited at hearing than findings of fact based upon such testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 C. Ernest Rennella, Esquire 2524 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent's Class "D" Security Guard license expired on September 10, 1993. On or about October 29, 1993, Respondent was employed by Thoney Georges Investigations. During the period October 29 through November 2, 1993, Respondent performed the duties of a security officer after expiration of his Class "D" license. On November 3, 1993, Respondent renewed his Class "D" Security Guard license.
Recommendation Upon consideration of all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalty: issuance of a reprimand and imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of November 1994. 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 16th day of November 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Letroy Altidor 12300 N.E. 4th Avenue, #323 Miami, Florida 33161 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a Class "D" Security Officer license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Cherubin Bastien (Bastien) filed an application with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) for a Class "D" Security Officer license on July 1, 1994. The Department denied Bastien's application by letter dated August 24, 1994. At final hearing the only basis for denial at issue was that Petitioner was currently serving felony probation. On October 14, 1993, Bastien was sentenced, in State of Florida v. Cherubin Bastien, Case No. 93-5337CF10, on a charge of aggravated assault (firearm), before the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to two and one half years probation, and adjudication was withheld. Bastien's probation will not terminate until April, 1996. Bastien is currently on probation and was on probation at the time that he filed his application on July 1, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Cherubin Bastien's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-219S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Cherubim Bastien 2322 Johnson Street, Apt. 1 Hollywood, Florida 33020 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
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as an unarmed security guard and an armed security guard. In response to Question #13 on the application, "Have you ever been arrested?", Petitioner answered "yes" and indicated he was sentenced to 18 months for "buying and receiving" in 1971. Petitioner's complete criminal record is as follows: Arrested Charge Sentenced 1967 Willful misuse without right of 1967, six months a motor vehicle 1968 Willful misuse without right of 1968, two years' a motor vehicle probation 1969 Aggravated assault 1969, dismissed 1969 Willful misuse without a motor vehicle right of 1970, 158 days 1970 Receiving a stolen auto 1971, 18 months 1971 Escape, auto robbery, robbery 1971, years total 25 concurrent 1980 Arrested auto theft Charge dropped February 1981 Possession of a concealed weapon Dismissed February 1982 Possession of a concealed weapon Pending The 1967 arrest and conviction occurred when the Petitioner was approximately 16 years old. Petitioner admitted that he had taken the cars as alleged for joyriding as a youth. Petitioner explained that he was sentenced to the state correctional institution for possession of a rental car which he had borrowed from a friend, who had stolen it. Petitioner admitted he had escaped from prison, had stolen a car, and had been recaptured when he ran out of gas in Perry, Florida. Petitioner served eight years in prison and two years of probation of the 25 years' sentence imposed on him. Since his release from prison, the Petitioner has worked as a truck driver, roofer, security guard and mechanic. He has married and lives with his father-in-law, his wife and her two children by a previous marriage. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored to him except for the right to bear arms. He has petitioned to have that right restored. The Petitioner testified that he was issued a temporary pistol permit and issued a firearm by his employer, "Globe," and that he worked in an armed guard post on a building project in Miami. He worked hard as a security guard, frequently worked double shifts, had obtained two promotions, and was being considered for a third promotion when he was terminated as a result of the denial by the Division of Licensing. All charges made against the Petitioner since his release from prison have been dismissed except the charge of possession of a concealed weapon made in February of 1982, which the Petitioner fully disclosed. Petitioner had purchased a .38 calibre revolver, thinking that he was authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the temporary pistol permit. It was this weapon that was discovered and for which he was charged in February of 1982. The Petitioner understood at the hearing that the temporary pistol permit did not authorize him to purchase or possess a firearm. Petitioner demonstrated a working knowledge of the limits of his authority as a security guard and secured his issued weapon in accordance with the company's rules and applicable regulations. The Petitioner presented a letter from his former supervisor at Globe, attesting to his good work, and a letter from a friend and neighbor attesting to his good conduct since his release from prison. Leroy Dowdell, who lives across from where the Petitioner now works, testified concerning Petitioner's reputation. Petitioner possesses a good reputation in the neighborhood. Dowdell stated he would trust the Petitioner to guard his personal property. The Petitioner stated that he wanted to be licensed because he could earn good money to support himself and his family, and that a knee injury and his criminal record had kept him from finding well-paid employment. Petitioner lacks a high school education. The Petitioner stated he did not list the offenses related to his escape because they occurred while he was in jail for the offense which he did list and were part of that record. Petitioner's testimony was uncontroverted.
Recommendation The Petitioner having established his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and respect for the law, he should be granted an unarmed security guard license; however, Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Willie James Summersett 2268 NW 51st Terrace Miami, Florida 33142 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1996, Petitioner revoked Respondent's Class "D" security officer license number D95-12548 and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in security services and to return to Petitioner Respondent's license. That Final Order certifies that a copy was mailed to Respondent that day. Respondent did not return his license to Petitioner. On November 1, 1996, Fred Speaker, the investigator supervisor in Petitioner's West Palm Beach office, went to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent asserted that he did not know where his license was. Respondent did not produce his license. On November 12 Speaker returned to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent was not there, and Respondent's wife did not produce Respondent's license. On April 17, 1997, while Speaker and investigator Jack D'Ambrosio were checking security posts and licenses, they encountered Respondent who was on duty at the gate house of a private community. They asked Respondent for his company identification and his guard license. Respondent produced both documents for their inspection. Petitioner's employees did not take Respondent's license that evening since they wished first to verify if the license were still revoked before taking Respondent's license from him. Sometime subsequent to that date, D'Ambrosio saw Respondent in Petitioner's office and again asked Respondent for his license. Respondent refused to give his license to D'Ambrosio.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Giordano, pro se 3655 Coelebs Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Brown, is the holder of a Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, a Class "D" Security Officer License, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. On September 19, 1989, the Department of State (Department) temporarily approved respondent's application for a Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility to be located at 15966 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. In June 1991 respondent relocated his school to 7900 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida; however, it was not until September 30, 1991, that he applied for a license at such location and not until February 18, 1992, that the Department issued its temporary approval of such application. Each of the schools operated by respondent and approved by the Department were designated, by respondent, as "in-house," or non-fee charging. During the period extending from April 1991 through January 1992 respondent provided training for a Class "D" Unarmed Security Guard License in Monroe County, Florida, without benefit of a Class "DS" Security Guard School License for that location, which failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. Specifically, in April 1991, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in the Econo Lodge, Key West, Florida. Such class included, among others, Brian Whitten and Ronald Shipman, who each paid approximately $100 for the course. The course lasted one day, starting at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluding around 4:00 p.m. following the administration of the examination, with one hour off for lunch and several short breaks. In all, not more that 6 hours of instruction were given. Both Whitten and Shipman received a certificate of successful completion of unarmed security guard training from respondent. Again, in January 1992, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in Key West, Florida. Such class included, among 8 or 9 others, Bruce Clothier, who paid $75 for the course. The course lasted from 8:00 a.m. until noon the first day, and from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 11:30 a.m. the second day. The second day of instruction lasted approximately three hours, most of which was a review of the previous day's material, and then the students were accorded about one-half hour to take an examination. Every student received a certificate of successful completion of the unarmed security guard training from respondent. As with the unarmed security guard training, the firearms trained offered by respondent often failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. In January 1991, in Miami, Florida, Brian Whitten received training from the respondent for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. His classroom and range training totaled approximately ten hours. Between April and October 1991, Charles Ramsey was employed by respondent at his Miami school, and assisted respondent in conducting training courses for Class "D" and Class "G" licensure. At the time, respondent was disabled, and Ramsey assisted him with various physical activities, as well as teaching first aid instruction to the students. While Ramsey taught the first aid course, respondent was always present. Ramsey did not, however, hold a Class "DI" license. Regarding the firearms training course for Class "K" licensure offered during this period, the proof demonstrates that little formal instruction was given. Rather, the students were given a booklet to take home with them to study for two days and on the third day received a block of instruction on the statutes of the State of Florida and firearm safety and an examination before lunch. Following lunch, the students received their range training. In December 1991, in Miami, Florida, John Ortiz paid respondent $40.00 for the training required for a firearms waiver. Respondent provided Ortiz with four hours of classroom training, which included reading and classroom discussion, and approximately two hours of range training. During range training, Ortiz fired one hundred and fifty rounds of ammunition. In January 1992, Ortiz returned to the respondent for requalification with his .38 caliber pistol for his Class "G" license. Respondent asked Ortiz for $35.00, which he paid, and received his recertification without any further training. On January 15, 1992, a Department of State investigator met with respondent to inspect his business records. Such inspection revealed that respondent had not maintained school records for a period of at least two years at his business location, and those that were available failed to disclose the type of training given, the location of the classes, a log of students and their signatures for each class, or the name of the instructor. Nor did respondent have copies of all certificates or diplomas presented to students for successful completion of training courses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in Courts I-VII of the administrative complaint, dismissing Count VIII of the administrative complaint, and revoking respondent's Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, and Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility License, reserving to respondent the opportunity to reapply for licensure following one year from the date of revocation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of April 1993. 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 2nd day of April 1993.
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.
