Findings Of Fact During April or May 1988, Respondent solicited business as a private investigator from two credit unions in Hillsborough County, Florida. He approached employees of the credit unions and held himself out as a private investigator by discussing repossession services he could provide. He distributed a brochure and introductory materials describing the fees charged and services provided by Recovery, which included missing persons, child custody, investigations, escorts, surveillance, as well as repossessions. According to two former employees of Recovery, these solicitations continued through the Summer of 1988. The materials distributed to these credit unions by Respondent included a purported license number A-8700255 for Recovery issued by Petitioner on February 26, 1988. In fact, this license was a forgery, and had never been issued to Recovery. The license number shown on this forgery is that of another private investigative agency, the Boucher Agency located in Lutz, Florida. Respondent employed Janice Boucher during April and May 1988, for the specific purpose of using her license to operate Recovery. During an investigation into these matters in May 1988, Respondent gave to Petitioner's special investigator, Daniel Cabrera, a business card showing the name of Recovery with Boucher's license number. The card states that Recovery is "licensed," and includes the name of Respondent, as chairman. Finally, Respondent's business card represents that Recovery is specializing in collateral recovery. Respondent was responsible for, and ordered another employee of Recovery to prepare a forged license for Recovery using Boucher's license. Respondent was the owner of Recovery, at all times material hereto. Boucher did not authorize or participate in this forgery. In May 1988, Respondent obtained a Hillsborough County occupational license for Recovery which states it is for a "private investigative agency, Lic. A-8700255." The private investigative agency number shown on this occupational license is for the Boucher Agency, not Recovery. Neither Respondent nor Recovery have ever been licensed by Petitioner to engage in the business of a private investigative agency, and have never possessed either a "Class A" private investigative agency license, or a "Class C" private investigator license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 on Respondent, Jack Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE No. 88-4313) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4. 3-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3,5. 9-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jack Warren 1502 East Trampnell Road Plant City, Florida 33566 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent, Frank R. Kuiken, Jr., should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 3:00 PM on August 30, 1989, Manatee County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Kenyon saw Respondent's wife, Michelle, driving their automobile in the city of Bradenton with a blue flasher posted on the dash board inside the windshield. Because the unauthorized use of such a light is prohibited by law, Deputy Kenyon stopped Ms. Kuiken and when he approached the car, noticed she had moved the light from the dashboard to the floor. When he asked her why she had such a light in the car, she replied that her husband, a private investigator, used it in the course of his business in emergency situations. Deputy Kenyon requested Respondent be contacted and come to the scene. When he arrived, Kuiken advised Kenyon that he was a private investigator and used the light only in cases of extreme emergency in the performance of those duties. He further related he had not yet had the opportunity to use it. Mr. Kuiken also indicated that in addition to being a private investigator, he was a process server appointed by two local judges, and a court officer. Deputy Kenyon attempted to verify Respondent's claim to being a court officer but was unable to do so. Upon request, Respondent refused to show a private investigator's license, but indicated he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Several days later, Mr. Eugene Blitch, an investigator with the Department of State's Division of Licensing, was contacted by the Bradenton Police Department regarding Mr. Kuiken's claim to being a private investigator, and requested to confirm the licensing status. Blitch's inquiry and search of official state records revealed that Kuiken was the holder of a concealed weapon permit but did not hold, does not now hold, and never has held a license as either a private investigator or a private investigative agency. There was no evidence presented with reference to the occupational license. Respondent's business card, which he gave to the Deputy Sheriff indicates he holds himself out, without qualification, as an "investigator" offering surety recovery, missing persons searches, and service of process services. He claims this card was not given out to the general public but only to attorneys and finance companies for whom he worked on a contract basis. On September 7, 1989, Mr. Blitch, in the company of a Manatee County detective, went to the Respondent's home in Bradenton where upon inquiry from Blitch, Respondent admitted he did not hold a license to do private investigative work. He also indicated he carried no liability insurance but claimed, however, that he did not work for the public and did not advertise or hold himself out to the general public as a private investigator. He indicated he worked for attorneys, as a process server, and as an employee of ITT Financial Services. Inquiry of the manager of this concern revealed Respondent was not an employee of the company but did security and investigative work for it on a contract basis from time to time. During his interview with Blitch, Respondent denied having admitted to the deputy that he was a private investigator, but the other evidence contradicts this and is found to be more credible. The evidence of record clearly indicates that Respondent held himself out as an investigator, and the hearsay statement of the ITT manager confirms this. Respondent asserted to Mr. Blitch that since he did no work for the general public and limited his activity solely to process serving, work for attorneys, and for ITT, he was not required to be licensed. When advised that his understanding was incorrect, he quickly agreed to do whatever was necessary to "get legal".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr., be assessed an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 11th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr. 5655 Tousley Drive Eau Claire, Michigan 49111 Hon. 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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the Petitioner’s application for a Class “C” Private Investigator license and the application he filed as President on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner’s Class “C” Application The Petitioner applied for his Class “C” Private Investigator license on April 29, 1996. The application included the Petitioner’s Affidavit of Experience, which represented the following qualifying experience: employment with Telephonic Collections, Inc., from 3/91 to 9/93, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “credit and asset investigations for recovery of debts; did skip-tracing full-time to locate subjects for debt recovery; utilized collection network and data base information.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Collections, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment with Telephonic Info, Inc., from 9/93 to 2/96, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “administrative processing of investigation files; computer data base research and information recovery; computer preparing or reports; administrative dutys [sic] in investigation agency.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Info, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment as an auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven, Connecticut, from 1965 to 1967, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself part-time as follows: “received police training and performed assignments as required.” The Petitioner did not specify how much time was devoted to those duties. Captain Stephen D. Rubelman was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. Processing of the Petitioner’s Applications The Respondent began the process of verifying the information in the Petitioner’s Class “C” application on May 8, 1996, when it had referred the Petitioner’s fingerprint card to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for a criminal history. The Respondent subsequently began its own verification of the information in the application by telephoning Apter. On June 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned Apter, who verified the representations in the Petitioner’s application as to his experience with Telephonic Collections. Specifically, Apter stated that Telephonic Collections was a collection agency and that, for two years and five months, “100% of the applicant’s job was skiptracing [sic] individuals with delinquent accounts for the purpose of collecting the money owed to creditor.” Since this experience exceeded minimum requirements, no further verification was considered necessary, and the Respondent awaited the criminal history report from the FDLE. While the Respondent was awaiting the criminal history report from the FDLE, the Petitioner telephoned the Respondent to inquire as to the status of his application. On August 2, 1996, after being told the status, the Petitioner filed an application as president on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license. Eventually, on August 27, 1996, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history report from the FLDE, and it showed no reason not to grant the Petitioner’s applications. But earlier in August, Garry Floyd, an investigator in the Respondent’s Tampa office, learned that the Petitioner had filed applications for licensure. From prior dealings with the Petitioner and Apter, Investigator Floyd was unaware that the Petitioner had any qualifying experience. To the contrary, during a June 1994, investigation Floyd was conducting into unlicensed activities by employees of Telephonic Info, a licensed private investigation agency, the Petitioner emphatically denied that he was conducting investigations for the company. The Petitioner told Floyd that the Petitioner did not know how to conduct an investigation and did not want to know how; he said his role in the company was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd obtained a copy of the Petitioner’s applications and saw the Petitioner’s representations as to his experience with Telephonic Info as well as Telephonic Collections. Since those representations did not comport with statements the Petitioner made to Floyd in June 1994, and did not comport with Floyd’s understanding as to the nature of the Petitioner’s experience, Floyd recommended on August 13, 1997, that the Respondent allow him to investigate further before approving the Petitioner’s applications and issuing any licenses. During his investigation, Floyd obtained statements from three individuals thought to be former employees of Telephonic Collections to the effect that they had no knowledge of any skip- tracing or other investigative work being conducted by the Petitioner. All three—C.J. Bronstrup, Jason Gillard, and Duncan Tate—thought that the Petitioner’s role was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd also was aware that Apter’s applications for renewal of his Class “C” and Class “A” licenses had been denied due to what Floyd understood to be a felony conviction. (Although Apter’s testimony on the criminal charges against him was confusing, it would appear that he entered a plea on the felony charge, and adjudication was withheld. There apparently also were unconnected charges of perjury against him, but the disposition of those charges is not clear from Apter’s testimony.) Finally, Investigator Floyd also recalled that Apter once told Floyd that Apter thought he might have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent not credit the Petitioner with any qualifying experience from his employment with Telephonic Collections and also recommended that the representations on the application regarding that employment experience be considered fraudulent misrepresentations. When the Petitioner’s experience with Telephonic Collections was called into question, the Respondent attempted to verify the Petitioner’s experience with the City of West Haven Police Department but was unable to contact Stephen Rubelman at the telephone number given in the application. (According to the Respondent’s witness, “the phone rang off the hook.”) Then, on September 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned the City of West Haven Police Department but was informed that the Respondent’s employment there between 1965 and 1967 was too old to verify. For these reasons, on September 27, 1996, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent deny the Petitioner’s applications. On October 7, 1996, the Respondent mailed the Petitioner a letter giving notice of intent to deny the Petitioner’s applications. The letter was addressed to the Petitioner as president of INFO, Inc., at “13575 - 58 Street North, Clearwater, Florida 34620.” This mailing was returned undelivered on October 14, 1996, and the letter was returned undelivered. On October 15, 1996, the letter was re-sent in another envelope to “Post Office Box 1241, Largo, Florida 34649,” the mailing address on the Class “A” application. But apparently this time the mailing was returned for postage. The envelope was meter-stamped on October 26, and was received by the Petitioner on October 29, 1996. Verification of Petitioner’s Qualifying Experience The Petitioner did not directly dispute the testimony of Investigator Floyd as to what the Petitioner told him during Floyd’s June 1994, investigation. See Finding 5, supra. Instead, the Petitioner testified essentially that he in fact knew how to do skip-tracing and conduct investigations, having been taught and trained by Apter, and that the Petitioner had extensive experience doing skip-tracing and conducting investigations working for Telephonic Collections, which was a debt collection agency. While not directly disputing Floyd’s testimony as to what the Petitioner said to Floyd, the Petitioner alleged that Floyd may have been biased against him (due to his association with Apter) and suggested that Floyd knew or should have known that the Petitioner knew how to do investigation work because Floyd once asked the Petitioner to get some information for him and watched as the Petitioner placed a pretext call. Regardless of Floyd’s alleged bias or pertinent knowledge, it is found that Floyd accurately related what the Petitioner said to him and that the Petitioner’s purpose in making those statements was to avoid any further investigation into whether the Petitioner also was participating in unlicensed investigative activities during his employment by Telephonic Info. Even assuming that the Petitioner did skip-tracing and investigations for Telephonic Collections, it is clear from the testimony that the Petitioner did not do skip-tracing and investigations full-time, 100 percent of the time, as represented in the Class “C” application and as verified by Apter upon telephone inquiry. At final hearing, Apter testified that, when he verified the Petitioner’s experience for the Respondent on June 26, 1996, he did not mean that the Petitioner had no other duties but rather that the Petitioner did no collection work— i.e., the collection employees would take the information the Petitioner developed from his skip-tracing and asset location efforts and telephone the debtors to try to get satisfaction of the debt. Apter conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. It is the Respondent’s policy, when an applicant has employment experience in a full-time job that involves some investigative work or training in addition to other duties, to credit the applicant for a pro rata amount of qualifying experience based on the quantifiable percentage of time devoted to the investigative work or training. It could not be determined from the evidence what percentage of the Petitioner’s work at Telephonic Collections was devoted to skip-tracing and investigation work and how much was administrative. The Petitioner and Apter testified that Apter trained the Petitioner in skip-tracing and investigation work and that the Petitioner did a substantial amount of skip-tracing and investigation work from March 1991, through September 1993; but both conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. Apter did not break down the Petitioner’s time spent between the two. The Petitioner made a rough approximation that 25 percent of his time was spent on administrative matters. Sharon Jones, who worked for both Telephone Collections and Telephone Info, testified that the Petitioner did some skip-tracing work, as well as other duties, between June through September 1993, but she also could not estimate the percentage of time spent between the two. Other witnesses, including Bronstrup and Tate, were not aware that the Petitioner was doing any skip-tracing at all during the times they were working for Telephonic Collections. (Bronstrup worked there for approximately ten weeks between March and June 1993; Tate worked there from February 1993, through the time it became Telephonic Info in September 1993.) In partial response to the testimony of Bronstrup and Tate, the Petitioner suggested that it was not surprising for them not to be aware of the Petitioner’s skip-tracing and other investigative work because much of it was done at the Petitioner’s home after hours and because most of the employees were treated on a “need to know” basis. (The Petitioner also contended that Bronstrup did not spend much time at work for Telephonic Collections, as he also had another part-time job and did some personal investigation work on the side.) But even if it is true that the Petitioner did much of his skip-tracing and other investigative work at home after hours, only the Petitioner and Apter even knew about it, and the amount of time the Petitioner spent doing investigative work at home clearly was not verified. The Petitioner continues to maintain that he stopped doing any skip-tracing or investigative work after Telephonic Collections, the debt collection agency, ceased doing business and became Telephonic Info, the private investigation agency. As for the Petitioner’s experience as a part-time auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven police department, the application does not give any indication as to how much time, if any, the Petitioner spent doing investigation work or being trained in that work. The Rubelman affidavit introduced in evidence to verify his experience likewise does not give that kind of information. It only states generally that the Petitioner received training in and assisted in police work. It does not indicate that any of the training or work was in investigations. It also indicates that no records of the Petitioner’s employment exist and that Rubelman cannot reconstruct even the months the Petitioner worked, much less what the work consisted of. Although it is not clear, at final hearing it appeared that the Petitioner may have been claiming credit for work he did collecting Telephonic Info’s accounts receivable. However, the amount of any such work was not quantified. It also appeared at final hearing that the Petitioner also was claiming credit for doing background investigations on prospective employees of Telephonic Info. However, the Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of any of this work. Alleged Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation The Petitioner stated in the Affidavit of Experience in his Class “C” application that the “approximate percentage of time devoted to” the qualifying skip-tracing and investigation duties listed for his employment with Telephonic Collections from March 1991 to September 1993 was “full time.” This statement clearly was false. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner spent at least some time doing administrative work; several thought that was all the Petitioner was doing. The Petitioner conceded in his testimony at final hearing that at least 25 percent of his time was devoted to administrative work, and it is found that the actual percentage probably was much higher. Unlike Apter, the Petitioner made no attempt to explain his false representation, and it is found to be a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation.
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 denying both the Petitioner’s Class “C” license application and his Class “A” license application. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry P. Schlenther 12155 Meadowbrook Lane Largo, Florida 33774 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A00-01205, and a Class "C" Private Investigator Licence, Number C00-01229. Respondent has been licensed as a private investigator since 1962. During that time, there has been no disciplinary action against his licenses. On or about May 26, 1994, Leslie Dillingham hired Respondent to obtain proof of her husband's homosexuality for use in a divorce and custody proceeding. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she requested that Respondent conduct a surveillance of her husband, Mr. Dillingham, and his alleged boyfriend. She also requested that Respondent send someone who could pass as being gay to attend a meeting of an alleged support organization for homosexual men at a branch of the public library on May 28, 1994. Ms. Dillingham wanted to find out the names and addresses of the gay men who were members of the support group. Respondent represented to Ms. Dillingham that he would conduct the surveillance and that he had employees that could assist him in performing these services. He told Ms. Dillingham that he had an employee who could pass as being gay and infiltrate the organization of gay men. However, that employee was out of town. Respondent said he would contact this employee and have him attend the meeting at the library. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she expressly informed Respondent of the time constraints involved in the investigation. She needed all available information before June 7, 1994, which was the trial date for her divorce and child custody proceeding. Ms. Dillingham specifically requested an oral daily report, an itemized statement of the work done, and a written report of the outcome of Respondent's investigation. Respondent was to make his daily reports by telephone to Ms. Dillingham's home or office. Ms. Dillingham gave Respondent some pictures of her husband and his alleged boyfriend along with the tag numbers for their automobiles. She also gave Respondent a retainer in the amount of $1,500. She agreed to pay Respondent and/or his employees $40 per hour. Respondent immediately began his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's residence on May 26, 1994. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked alone and did not engage any employee or other investigator to assist him with the investigation. On May 27, 1994, Respondent continued his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's apartment and made spot checks at the home of the alleged boyfriend who lived in a different part of town. The surveillance revealed no contact between the two subjects. Respondent did not attempt to make his daily report to Ms. Dillingham. On May 28, 1994, Respondent conducted surveillance of the subjects' residences, first one and then the other, until 4:00 p.m. At that time, Respondent went to the library branch where the support group was scheduled to meet. He had been unable to arrange for his employee to infiltrate the meeting. Instead, Respondent sat outside the door of the meeting where he could hear the group planning a Memorial Day picnic. He was able to record the tag numbers of some of the men attending the meeting. Neither of the subjects attended the support group meeting. After the meeting, Respondent resumed his surveillance at the residences of Mr. Dillingham and the alleged boyfriend. They did not have any contact with each other. Again, Respondent did not attempt to contact his client to make his daily report. The next day was Sunday, May 29, 1994. Once again Respondent's surveillance of the subjects' residences was not fruitful. Respondent contacted his client, Ms. Dillingham, who directed him not to begin surveillance of the husband until after noon the next day. Ms. Dillingham did not want Respondent to conduct surveillance on the morning of May 30, 1994, because her husband would have visitation with their son during that time. Monday, May 30, 1994, was Memorial Day. Respondent's surveillance from 1:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. did not reveal any contact between the subjects. However, Respondent made his daily report to his client. Ms. Dillingham informed Respondent that she was attempting to serve her husband's male friends with subpoenas for deposition. She told Respondent that once "the cat was out of the bag," continued surveillance probably would not be useful. On May 31, 1994, Respondent was unable to locate the vehicle of the client's husband at home or at work. Spot checks throughout the day revealed no activity between the subjects. When Respondent made his daily report, Ms. Dillingham told him that depositions of her husband's friends would take place on June 2, 1994, and mediation on June 3, 1994. After this conversation, Respondent understood that the surveillance part of the investigation was complete. Ms. Dillingham's husband had visitation with their son on Wednesday evening, June 2, 1994, and on the weekend from Friday, June 3, 1994, through Sunday, June 5, 1994. Ms. Dillingham did not want surveillance conducted during visitation periods. Ms. Dillingham and her sister, Karlene Goller, tried to reach Respondent by phone several times everyday from June 1, 1994, through June 4, 1994. They were not successful. On Sunday, June 5, 1994, Respondent returned one of Ms. Dillingham's calls and agreed to meet her at her office. During the meeting, Respondent returned the photographs of Ms. Dillingham's husband and his alleged boyfriend. He also gave her the tag numbers of some of the men who attended the support group meeting at the public library. Ms. Dillingham was dissatisfied with the results of Respondent's investigation because it had not produced any evidence of her husband's homosexuality. Respondent informed Ms. Dillingham that he had worked for 60 hours on the case. Ms. Dillingham was so upset that Respondent agreed to continue the investigation without charging her for his time in excess of the $1,500 retainer. Respondent said he would visit some gay bars to determine whether anyone knew Mr. Dillingham. Respondent told Ms. Dillingham that he might have to pay someone at the gay bars to contact him if they saw Mr. Dillingham at a bar. On Monday, June 6, 1994, Respondent went to some gay bars. At a bar known as the Metro, Respondent made contact with a bartender/security man, Bruce Long, who knew most of the gay men in town. However, Mr. Long did not know Mr. Dillingham by name and verbal description. Respondent gave $50 dollars to Mr. Long and promised to furnish him with a photograph of Mr. Dillingham. In exchange for the money, Mr. Long agreed to call Respondent if he saw Mr. Dillingham. Around 11:00 p.m. on June 6, 1994, Respondent met with Ms. Dillingham and her sister at a Waffle House on Roosevelt Boulevard. She gave a photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Respondent to show to Mr. Long at the Metro. Later that night, Respondent returned to the Metro. He gave the photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Mr. Long who agreed to show it around to friends and bartenders at other gay clubs. June 7, 1994, was the date of the final hearing in Ms. Dillingham's divorce and custody proceeding. After checking with Mr. Long to find out if any of his gay friends knew Mr. Dillingham, Respondent beeped Ms. Dillingham indicating that he had no new information. Ms. Dillingham never saw Respondent's investigative report marked as Petitioner's Exhibit One (1) until an investigator from Petitioner's office showed it to her. She never received an itemized statement or bill indicating how Respondent spent her retainer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 and placing the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1996. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 except for last sentence in 3(a) of the Proposed Facts which is rejected. No persuasive evidence that Respondent and his client discussed the need to make inquiries at gay bars during the initial meeting. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10 and 16-17. Accept in Findings of Fact 17 that Respondent agreed to visit some gay bars but reject that Respondent offered to buy testimony. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry H. Wells Attorney at Law 8015 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's private investigator licenses should be revoked based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail contained in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein mailed October 11, 1985. Preliminary Statement The Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, issued an Administrative Complaint to assess an Administrative fine against Respondent Arthur Letourneau, on November 9, 1984. The complaint was amended on March 5, 1985. A second amended complaint was issued on October 11, 1985 seeking revocation of Respondent's license. That complaint is the charging document which is the focus of this hearing. That document alleges as follows: Count I: The Respondent operated a private investigative agency for hire utilizing unlicensed investigators and process servers prior to becoming licensed as a Class "A" agency in violation of Sections 493.319(1)(g) and 493.304(1), Florida Statutes. Count II: The Respondent performed the services of a Private Investigator for hire without a Class "C" license in violation of Section 493.319(1)(g); Count III: Respondent has incurred and has failed to satisfy two judgments for outstanding fees for private investigations which constitute misconduct under Section 493.319(1)(f). The investigations were performed by David Tracy and Anthony Luizzi and judgments and fees are outstanding in the amount of $5,314.44 (Tracy) and $1,731.00 (Luizzi). At the hearing, Respondent's Counsel filed an ore tenus Motion for Continuance of the hearing based on a claimed lack of timely notice to prepare for the hearing. Respondent's Motion was tentatively denied. 1/ Additionally, Respondent's Counsel challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleging, inter alia that the referenced statute violated Respondent's due process in that the statute was overbroad, ambiguous and may involve the prohibition of innocuous activities. Counsel also alleged that the statutes as enacted violated Respondent's First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. Finally, Respondent's counsel averred that conduct proscribed by Section 493.301, F.S. involved conduct which although improper to be engaged in by an unlicensed investigator, is the type conduct considered permissible by attorneys utilizing the services of investigators. The undersigned lacks authority to render determinations of the alleged unconstitutionality of statutes and therefore denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material, the Petitioner, Division of Licensing is the state agency having authority and jurisdiction to license and regulate private investigators and private investigative agencies pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Arthur Leteurneau, applied for a Class "C" private investigator's license and a Class "A" private investigative agency's license on April 9, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The applied for licenses were issued to Respondent on September 21, 1984. Respondent holds Class "A" private investigative agency's license No. GA8400007 and Class "C" private investigation's license No. GC0400013, both effective September 21, 1984. Prior to his licensure in Florida, Respondent worked (in Florida) for various attorneys and law offices in Dade and Broward counties. (TR 211-225; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent performed a variety of services for said attorneys including the photographing of accident scenes, taking sworn witness statements, locating the whereabouts of witnesses and other persons and service of legal process. Additionally, while working for attorney Richard Auerbach, Respondent recruited two other individuals, Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy to assist him in the performance of investigative work. David Tracy worked with Respondent from January thru September, 1983. (TR 91-95). Respondent gave Tracy specific work assignments such as the taking of witness statements, photographing accident scenes and completing client's interview sheets. At the time Tracy performed the services, he was not licensed as a investigator or as an intern. Tracy worked without a surety bond or insurance. A dispute arose between Respondent and Tracy concerning the payment of fees for Tracy's services. Tracy filed a claim against Respondent in Circuit Court, Broward County, regarding the payment for services and on September 18, 1984, a judgment was entered in his behalf in the amount of $5,314.44 for services rendered. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, TR 100-103). That judgment was outstanding at the time of this hearing. (TR 107). Anthony Liuzzi began working with Respondent in July, 1883 and continued through September, 1983. At the time Liuzzi was a licensed investigator intern and was working under the sponsorship and insurance of the Intercounty Investigative Agency. (TR 133). Liuzzi, like Tracy, also assisted Respondent in completing work assignments including taking pictures of accident scenes, researching property ownership, interviewing clients and taking witness statements relating to personal injury claims. Like Tracy, Liuzzi also had a dispute with Respondent over fees for his services and filed a claim in Circuit Court for unpaid wages in the amount $1,731.00. Liuzzi received a judgment against Respondent in the amount climbed which was unsatisfied at the time of the hearing herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR 138- 139). Prior to his licensure, Respondent spoke to several employees employed by Petitioner concerning the requirements for and his need to obtain an investigator's license in circumstances similar to the arrangements he had with the several lawyers for whom he performed investigative work. Excluding employee Pam Pingree, Respondent was advised (by Petitioner's staff) that he was not required to be licensed by Petitioner. Ms. Pingree advised Respondent that although it was not required that he be licensed, inasmuch as he was eligible for licensure and to remove any cloud concerning the need for him to be licensed, he should apply for and obtain a license. Respondent first spoke to Petitioner's employee Seymour Klosky on August 20, 1980. During the meeting with Klosky, Respondent also net with John Bianco, an investigator employed by Petitioner. Respondent later met with Harvey Matthews, also an employee of Petitioner, who related that what he was doing was permissible based on Respondent's detailed description of the manner in which he conducted assignments for the various attorneys. Respondent met with Matthews on October 8, 1983 and on February 9, 1984. TR 207-208. During the February 9, 1984 meeting with Matthews, Respondent requested a meeting with Pam Pingree who advised him of Petitioner's policy with respect to the need for licensure to engage in the type work that he was performing for attorneys. Ms. Pingree related that it "wasn't the policy of the Department to prosecute people if they have the qualification [Respondent] had, why don't he [Respondent] get a license." (TR 208). Respondent agreed to, and in fact applied for licenses, as indicated, on April 9, 1984. Respondent's application for licensure was investigated by Petitioner's employee Richard Chauncy. Respondent was investigated by investigator Chauncy on April 10, 1984. During the investigation, Respondent offered his experiences with law firms in Dade and Broward Counties as examples of the investigative experience he had. Additionally, Respondent listed his experience as a Deputy Sheriff with the Cook County Sheriff's office in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's office from December 1970 thru July, 1979 as a Deputy Sheriff. Respondent also served as a private investigator in Chicago from the period June, 1970 to October, 1981 as a self employed private investigator on a part time basis. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that Respondent conducted private investigative work for various law firms in the Miami area during a period in which he was not licensed as a private investigator or licensed to conduct a private investigative agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Additionally, Petitioner was aware that Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy had filed complaints against Respondent based on the dispute for unpaid wages which is the subject of the amended administrative complaint filed herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Page 3, Section v.) Additionally, Liuzzi had filed with Respondent at least three complaint letters which were the subject of investigation by Petitioner, prior to the time Respondent filed his application for licensure. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). The judgments, which are the subject of the amended administrative complaint, were entered shortly (three days) prior to Respondent's licensure. The operative facts forming the basis for the issuance of the judgments involve the disputed wage claims of Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy. Respondent was qualified to hold a private investigative and private investigator's agency license based on the experience requirements set forth in Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's policy is to "take disciplinary action against an applicant who performs investigative services without a license, generally in the form of an administrative fine, and at the same time grant an otherwise qualified person a license." (TR 26-28, Testimony of Petitioner's Division Director, Shelley Bradshaw). All of the work performed by Respondent, which is the basis of the complaint filed herein, was work performed prior to Respondent's licensure either as a private investigator or a private investigative agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1986, 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 15th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Black submitted his application for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license and a Class "C" Private Investigator license to the Department of State on November 11, 1982, together with all the fees. By letter dated November 19, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black of the approval of the issuance of the Class "A" license subject to certain qualifications, which were not challenged by Mr. Black and are not at issue. By letter dated November 18, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black that it had denied his application for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator because Mr. Black failed to meet the experience requirements of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes. Mr. Black made a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Black is qualified to hold a Class "C" Private Investigator license except for his lack of experience. Investigative activities of a private investigator include, but are not limited to, searching records, interviewing witnesses, making personal observations of physical evidence, conducting surveillances, and reporting the results and conclusions of these activities. While a student at Broward Community College during 1974 and 1975, Mr. Black served as a member of the "504 Committee," a volunteer organization whose purpose is to assist persons protected by Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Black's primary duties with said committee consisted of receiving complaints of alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act concerning lack of physical access to public facilities, taking physical measurements of said facilities, performing library research to determine the applicability of the Act to said facility, and attempting to obtain compliance of the owner of the facility when a violation was found. Of these duties, the interviewing process and taking physical measurements would be qualified experience. No evidence was presented by Mr. Black regarding the specific amount of time which he devoted to these functions. While a student at Broward Community College during 1976 and 1977, Mr. Black engaged in a volunteer voter registration project for the handicapped. Mr. Black's primary duties in this regard consisted of obtaining voter registration data from public records, identifying areas in which registration of the handicapped was low, conducting house-to-house registration drives in said areas, writing letters, and arranging car pools. None of these activities qualify as experience for licensure as a private investigator. Mr. Black served as a volunteer firefighter for the North Andrews Volunteer Fire Department from 1972 to 1976. During this time, he attended a bomb and arson investigation seminar and assisted in a few arson investigations. Mr. Black did not document the specific number of investigations which he conducted or the amount of time spent in said investigations. During 1979 and 1980, during the tenure in office of Sheriff Ken Katsaris, Mr. Black served as a volunteer "special deputy" in Leon County. Mr. Black's primary duties consisted of inspecting polling places in the county to determine if proper access existed for the physically handicapped and reporting non-complying conditions to the Sheriff. While not all of Mr. Black's activities were qualified experience, he spent approximately 120 total hours on all activities in this project in 1980. For approximately three months, from August until October 1981, Mr. Black served as a nonpaid intern with the Florida Parole and Probation Services. Approximately 50 percent of this time was devoted to the qualified activities of locating probationers and parolees and assisting in investigations. Mr. Black assisted in processing service-connected or related disability claims for disabled veterans on a volunteer basis in the Leon County area. He assisted on five or six cased during the last several years. No evidence was submitted to document the specific amount of time Mr. Black devoted to the investigation of these claims. Mr. Black assisted the Alburquerque, New Mexico, police in locating the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice. This assistance was as a volunteer, and Mr. Black testified that he spent 20 to 25 hours a week for three months on this project. While attending Florida State University, Mr. Black participated in various programs to assist handicapped students. These activities are similar to the activities in which Mr. Black engaged as described in Paragraph 6 above. No evidence was presented as to the amount of time spent in qualified investigative activities during this time period. Mr. Black completed a four-day course in crisis intervention in 1981. Mr. Black obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from Florida State University. Although some of his course work in general subjects would be the same as the general course work required for a degree in criminology and some of the psychology courses which Mr. Black took would be helpful to an investigator, none of the course work which Mr. Black took is directly related to training as a private investigator. In evaluating the experience requirement for a Class "C" Private Investigator experience which is substantially identical and equal in force, power, effect and import as the experience gained in actually performing the services of a private investigator as a Class "CC" intern investigator. In evaluating the amount of time spent in investigative activities, the Department applies a standard 40-hour work week to the hours submitted by the applicant. The Department does not count volunteer experience in evaluating whether an applicant has met the time requirement unless the number of hours worked and the supervision exercise can be fully documented. Mr. Black has never been licensed as a Class "CC" intern investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Richard K. Black for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Richard K. Black 249 Oakview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Since 1972, petitioner Dennis F. Darnell has been in the tow truck business. He owns and operates one such truck. In addition to towing disabled cars to garages, petitioner has had five years' experience in locating and repossessing all types of vehicles. Typically, a financial institution would engage him to retrieve an automobile from a borrower in default, after telephoning the borrower that a tow truck was coming. In such cases, the lender furnished petitioner a "route sheet" with the name and address of the borrower and a description of the car. At one time or another, petitioner has worked in this way for every bank in Marion County. Petitioner has also been hired by private investigators to tow away vehicles the investigators had already tracked down. Occasionally, petitioner himself has used information obtained from utility companies, the courthouse and the post office to locate vehicles for repossession. In the winter of 1979, Mr. Reister, an employee of the respondent, told petitioner that petitioner needed a license in order to continue to do the work he had been doing for the banks. This was the first petitioner had heard of any such requirement. He agreed to stop working for the banks until he obtained a license and asked Mr. Reister to send him application forms. One week after he received the forms, petitioner submitted the completed forms to respondent. From the time he spoke to Mr. Reister until the time of the hearing, petitioner did not tow any repossessed cars for banks. On receiving respondent's letter of disapproval, petitioner retained counsel who requested a formal administrative hearing. Respondent referred petitioner's counsel's request for an administrative hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for private investigative agency license, DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel L. Hightower, Esquire 116 South East Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 32670 William J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Department of State Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a Class "C" private investigator and Class "MA" agency manager, having been issued licenses numbered C-0002856 and NA-8600240, respectively. On or about November 10, 1988, Respondent was engaged in an investigation and surveillance involving Joseph King to determine if King was disabled for purposes of a worker's compensation claim which was being disputed by the insurance carrier. As a result of Respondent's investigation, King was eventually denied certain benefits which he would otherwise have received. Respondent was performing this work through the Hillsborough County branch office of TRACE, Inc., a licensed private investigative agency which he managed. He was accompanied in this investigation and surveillance of King by two other licensed private investigators. During the course of this investigation,and surveillance, King became aware of Respondent and the other two investigators who were following him. He confronted one of the investigators named Tony Hobbs, and after it became apparent that King was preventing Hobbs from leaving, Respondent came to his aid and attempted to calm down the situation. King continued to refuse to allow the investigators to leave, and eventually Deputy Sheriffs arrived and secured Hobbs' release. At hearing, Mr. and Mrs. King both testified that Respondent and the other investigator, Hobbs, falsely identified themselves as federal agents who were allegedly involved in an undercover drug investigation. Respondent denies that he ever made such a representation to the Kings. Hobbs was not present to testify, but in a statement given to the Petitioner's investigator, John Matlack, in the regular course of his investigation of this incident Hobbs stated that he had been told by one of the Deputy Sheriffs that Respondent had made this statement. However, Hobbs was fired from TRACE, Inc., a couple of weeks after this incident, and therefore, has a motive for placing Respondent's license in jeopardy. Based upon the demeanor and testimony of Respondent and the Kings at hearing, as well as the motive which existed for the Kings to try to get back at Respondent for their loss of certain benefits resulting from his investigation, it is found that Respondent did not falsely identify himself as a federal agent at any time during the course of this investigation. Respondent was calm, orderly, logical, coherent and professional in his recollection of events, while Mr. King was aggressive and hostile towards Respondent. It was King who provoked the confrontation with Hobbs by restraining and preventing him from leaving. It was King who was angry with the investigators, including Respondent, and who allowed them to leave only after Deputy Sheriffs arrived. At hearing, it was King who was unclear in his recollection of specific details about the events of November 10, 1988, and he was clearly still angry with Respondent. The Petitioner also alleges that Respondent falsely identified himself as a federal agent to a neighbor of King, but that neighbor was not present to testify and his absence was not explained. Therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support this allegation concerning a statement allegedly made by Respondent to King's neighbor. It is against the policy of Respondent's company, TRACE, Inc., for any agent to represent himself to be a federal agent, and such misrepresentation is a basis for termination. Respondent is well aware of this policy, and credibly testified that he did not violate it in his investigation of King.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charge that Respondent violated Section 493.319(1)(i) Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 2-5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings cannot be made on the narrative statement filed by the Respondent on March 1, 1990, since it does not contain separately numbered proposed findings of fact and does not evidence that Respondent has provided a copy to counsel for the Petitioner. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Michael R. Heiland P. O. Box 152143 Tampa, FL 33614 Ken Rouse, Esguire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Captol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating the law regulating private investigators and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License bearing license number is C91-00006. Petitioner's files indicate that this license was issued January 10, 1991. Respondent testified that he has been licensed since December 1990. Despite records indicating that the Class "C" license was issued January 10, 1991, Petitioner, by letter dated May 24, 1991, informed Respondent that his Class "C" license "has been issued and is forthcoming." The May 24 letter adds: File review indicates that you are not currently employed. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, requires you to either own or be employed by a licensed Class "A" Private Investigative Agency. To work as a private investigator without meeting one of the foregoing conditions is a violation of law and subjects you to administrative action up to and including revocation of your Class "C" license. During 1991, Respondent was employed by A & W Investigations, which holds a Class "A" agency license. However, by July 7, 1991, he had completed his duties for A & W Investigations and was not employed by a Class "A" agency after that date. During the period between the termination of his employment with A & W Investigations and the meeting described below with Petitioner's investigator in October 1991, Respondent performed investigations related to workers' compensation for a company known as FEISCO. Serving as an independent contractor, Respondent also hired and paid James Coady for investigative work that he performed on Respondent's behalf for FEISCO. In August 1991, a new attorney in the area, Darren Young, received a letter from Respondent announcing his availability to serve as a consultant in criminal cases involving allegations of driving under the influence (DUI). Respondent had been employed for a couple of years by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and drew upon his experience in local law enforcement in providing DUI consultation services. Respondent and Mr. Young later met and began a business/social relationship. In October or November, Mr. Young hired Respondent as a DUI consultant in a pending case. Respondent served as an independent contractor, not an employee of Mr. Young. Although Mr. Young did not need Respondent to testify, he paid Respondent for his services. By letter dated September 23, 1991, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had learned that he was no longer employed by A & W Investigations as a Class "C" Private Investigator licensee. The letter contains the same warning as that quoted in the last two sentences of the above-cited May 24 letter. In early October 1991, an investigator of Petitioner met Respondent to discuss informal complaints made by two or three Naples private investigators that Respondent was conducting private investigations without a license. Respondent told the investigator that he was working for a tile company association doing investigations of its members and serving as an expert witness for attorneys in DUI cases. Petitioner's investigator explained that if Respondent intended to do any private investigations, he needed a Class "A" agency license with which to place his Class "C" private investigator's license. At the urging of Petitioner's investigator, Respondent agreed to begin the process of obtaining a Class "A" license, and, on October 3, 1991, Petitioner received Respondent's application for a Class "A" license. On December 26, 1991, Respondent obtained the general liability coverage required for the Class "A" license. By letter dated December 27, 1991, and received by Petitioner on January 6, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a money order in the amount of $300 in payment of the application fee, proof of liability insurance, and a copy of the fictitious name registration form. The letter states in part: I have contacted your office several times and have been informed that my fingerprints have not returned from FDLE. This is the only thing that I am waiting for before my license can be issued. The 90 days will be up in January and I was wondering if there is some provision that would allow me to start operations before they return. I would appreciate your advice on this matter. Prior to receiving the December 27 letter from Respondent, on January 3, 1992, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter "to notify you that your application for a Class "A" license had been approved." The letter states that Respondent needed to provide several items "so your license can be issued " The required items were a license fee of $300, certificate of insurance, and proof of filing a fictitious name. On January 8, 1992, Respondent mailed two letters. One was to Petitioner's investigator, stating that Respondent had "received the notice of approval for the issuance of my Agency license" and advising that he had "forwarded all of the required documentation to Tallahassee." The other letter of January 8, 1992, was to Petitioner and accompanies the certificate of liability insurance. The letter states that, on December 30, 1991, Respondent had sent Petitioner the application fee, copy of the fictitious name registration, and copy of the insurance binder. Petitioner received the certificate of liability insurance on January Noting that the certificate was not properly notarized, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter, on January 15, 1992, advising that the certificate of liability insurance was missing. By letter dated January 16, 1992, Respondent forwarded the certificate of liability insurance with proper notarization. Receiving the letter on January 22, 1992, Petitioner mailed a letter on January 24, 1992, advising Respondent that he had been issued on that date a Class "A" license, which was good from January 24, 1992, through January 24, 1994. Respondent engaged in at least two investigations during December 1991, at which time he clearly knew that he did not have a Class "A" license and needed one for the work in which he was engaged. In one case, he performed two days' surveillance on Kelly Trotta for Ray Trotta on December 6 and 7, 1991. By letter dated December 9, 1991, to Mr. Trotta, Respondent described the investigatory services that he provided and suggested future spot checks in order to avoid "running up the costs of the investigation." In another case, Mr. Young was retained on the day after Thanksgiving 1991 by Lawrence Harrison to provide legal services in connection with pending federal and state litigation. Mr. Young introduced Respondent to Mr. Harrison, who agreed to retain Respondent or allow Mr. Young to retain Respondent, in either case as an independent contractor. According to Respondent's invoice, Mr. Young hired him on December 16, 1991. The following day, Respondent checked corporate records as part of his investigative work and conveyed the information to Mr. Young. In the following days, Respondent researched Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, concerning the state litigation, which involved a legal action brought by Frank Coto against Mr. Harrison for unpaid private investigative services. Respondent drafted a complaint against Mr. Coto to be sent to Petitioner. Still in December, Respondent obtained character information on Mr. Coto and directly communicated it to the client. The complaint against Mr. Coto included allegations that he attempted to extort from Mr. Harrison the balance allegedly owed by Mr. Harrison to Mr. Coto for investigative services rendered. Mr. Harrison sent the complaint, under his signature, to Petitioner, which eventually elected not to prosecute. On January 9 and 10, 1992, according to Respondent's invoice of January 13, 1993, Respondent met with Mr. Harrison. By separate invoice, Respondent requested $1200 for the costs of a trip to Oklahoma in connection with investigative services related to the federal litigation. This sum was paid prior to January 24, 1992, which was when Respondent was to depart. On or about January 18, 1992, Mr. Young terminated his employment with Mr. Harrison. On January 23, 1992, Respondent contacted the FBI and informed them that Mr. Young had proposed a criminal conspiracy with Respondent to kill one or more persons involved with the Harrison matter. Subsequent investigations revealed no basis for criminal prosecution, nor professional discipline, against Mr. Young. The record is insufficient to determine if Respondent's charges were made in good faith. Instead of going himself, Respondent sent Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to perform investigative services for Respondent on behalf of Mr. Harrison. They departed either January 24 or 25, 1991, and performed the investigative services. There is no competent evidence as to whether Mr. Coady had a Class "C" license and, if so, when he obtained it. The evidence is unclear as to when Mr. Trotta obtained his Class "C: license, but he obtained or renewed a Class "C" license, possibly as early as January 23, 1994. Respondent allowed Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to place their Class "C" licenses, or the Class "C" licenses for which they were applying. The record establishes the date of sponsorship only as to Mr. Trotta. Respondent signed the form on January 5 and it was notarized on January 7, 1992. Respondent used his Class "A" license number, which he obtained by telephone from one of Petitioner's representatives prior to the official issuance of Respondent's Class "A" license. On March 4, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner advising that his firm was no longer sponsoring Mr. Trotta, Mr. Coady, or a third person, Heidi Trotta. Except for this letter, there is no evidence that Respondent ever employed Ms. Trotta, and Petitioner has failed to prove that anyone by that name was ever so employed by Respondent. The letter states that, as of January 30, 1992, Respondent's firm would no longer be responsible for their actions. The record does not indicate when Mr. Trotta and Mr. Coady were terminated. On August 11, 1992, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office and demanded his files for the Harrison and Trotta investigation, as well as a third investigation known as Sparkman/Hayes. Respondent offered to drive home and get the Trotta and Sparkman/Hayes files, but declined to provide the Harrison file until he received approval from Mr. Harrison's attorney, through whom he claimed to work. Petitioner's investigator told Respondent not to go home and get the two files, but to provide them to the investigator later. Respondent agreed to mail them, but did not. Petitioner's investigator never gave Respondent a deadline, nor did he ever again demand that Respondent give him the files. The failure to produce the Harrison file is not the subject of any allegations in the present case. During the course of the August 11 interview, Petitioner's investigator asked Respondent about Mr. Coto and the complaint that had been filed with Petitioner against him. Respondent initially lied, denying knowing anything about Mr. Coto or the complaint. But Petitioner's investigator showed Respondent a letter that Respondent had sent to Mr. Young, which effectively contradicted these denials. Respondent then admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he had drafted the complaint against Mr. Coto and that it had been intended to "muddy the waters." The intent of Respondent was to undermine Mr. Coto's civil action against Mr. Harrison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order ordering Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $3550. ENTERED on June 24, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 24, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Attorney Ken Muszynski 850 Fifth Ave. South Naples, FL 33940
