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 Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, is the licensing authority which has statutory jurisdiction over private investigative and security guard licensees. During times material, Respondent, John L. Troutner held a Class C private investigator's license and a Class "A" private investigative agency license. Respondent John Troutner is the owner of Atlas Private Investigating Agency located at 5466 Springhill Drive, Springhill, Florida. Respondent Pamela L. Troutner, during times material, held a Class "CC" private investigator's intern license and worked for her husband, Respondent John L. Troutner. Neither Respondent held Class "B" or "D" security guard licenses. During October 1988, Michael Friedman hired Atlas Private Investigating Agency (Atlas) to investigate his wife Vickie Friedman, pending their divorce proceeding. As part of their duties, Respondents provided Friedman with home security and guard services. Pam Troutner was posted at the Friedman residence and was told by Mr. Friedman to deny entrance to house guests, specifically Ms. Friedman, without his permission. John Troutner checked in at the Friedman residence on a regular basis and at times, stayed overnight. Between October 25 and November 25, 1988, Respondent employed James McCullough, an unlicensed person, to perform the services of a private investigator without a Class "C" private investigator'S license. McCullough was paid with checks drawn on the account of Atlas which referenced investigative case numbers and he was accompanied by an Atlas investigator, Tommy House, who was engaged to surveil Vickie Friedman on November 23, 1988. During times material, Vickie Friedman and her stepfather, Gerald Townsend, were employed by a local newspaper, the Sun Journal. During November 1988, John Troutner and employees of Atlas harassed Vickie Friedman while they were surveilling Ms. Friedman, by attempting to and successfully getting Mr. Townsend fired from his employment with the Sun Journal and threatened to file suit against the Sun Journal if Ms. Friedman and Mr. Townsend were not fired. Vickie Friedman had a friend who lived across the street from Respondent John Troutner, a Ms. Mary Marconi. Respondent John Troutner instigated Ms. Marconi's eviction as a means of harassment and based on her friendship with Vickie Friedman. Vickie Friedman utilized Ms. Marconi's home, which was near Respondent Troutner's residence, to store property at the Marconi home when she and her husband separated. On May 7, 1987, and May 5, 1988, Respondent John Troutner submitted to Petitioner signed applications for Class A, B, C, E and M licenses without disclosing his previous ownership of the Scuba Den and without divulging his use of an alias, John Delaney. During early 1988 and between October 25 and December 31, 1988, Respondents electronically recorded telephone conversations without the knowledge of or consent of the parties being recorded. Specifically, Respondent, John Troutner, engaged in conversations with Rick Guyette, Don West and several other unidentified people, and their conversations were electronically recorded without their knowledge or consent. Respondent Pamela Troutner engaged in a conversation with Vickie Friedman and this conversation was also recorded without Ms. Friedman's authorization or knowledge. As the owner of Atlas, John Troutner engaged his wife, Pamela Troutner to surveil the Friedman residence. Respondent knew, or should have known that his wife, Pamela Troutner was illegally recording telephone conversations without the knowledge of and consent of such persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents John L. Troutner, Pamela L. Troutner and Atlas Private Investigating Agency, Inc., licenses be suspended for a period of one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Div. of Licensing The Capitol, Mailstation 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Daniel P. Rock, Esquire One East Main Street New Port Richey, Florida 34652 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 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 are whether Petitioner's rule challenge petition should be dismissed for failure to present issues that meet the requirements of Sections 120.56(1), 120.56(3), and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, whether Respondent is entitled to an award of costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Sections 120.569(2)(e), 120.595(3), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator license on or about May 15, 2000. By letter dated September 5, 2000, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application for a Class "C" license as a private investigator was denied. The letter stated as follows in relevant part: Failure to qualify under Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. You have not demonstrated the necessary lawfully gained, verifiable, full-time experience or appropriate training. Your application is therefore being denied. Petitioner filed a request for an administrative hearing with Respondent on or about September 13, 2000. He filed an amended request for hearing with Respondent on or about September 15, 2000. On September 27, 2000, Respondent issued an Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend. This order referenced Rule 28-106.201(2), Florida Administrative Code, and found that Petitioner's hearing request was substantially deficient because it did not contain the following: An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interest will be affected by the agency determination; A statement of disputed issues of material fact. The Petitioner has not disputed the material facts at issue in this case; which is whether the Petitioner provided the Division with information which the Division could then verify. Verification is achieved by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work. Petitioner provided information concerning former employers in the Affidavit of Experience section of the application. After submitting the application, Petitioner submitted an affidavit from an investigator, however that investigator was not Petitioner's employer and therefore not in the position to verify Petitioner's experience. For the first time, in Petitioner's requests for a hearing, Petitioner submits information concerning a former career in executive recruiting consisting of an affidavit, notarized in Maryland, of a former co- worker. This information was never provided to the Division and is not listed anywhere on the application submitted by Petitioner nor is there any way to verify any of the information in that affidavit as the affiant's address and telephone number are not provided. In his petitions for hearing Petitioner has raised only legal issues which are not legally the forum of a formal administrative hearing. Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes . . . . A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action . . . . (Emphasis added) Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend also determined that: (a) Petitioner's hearing requests improperly mixed rule validity challenge arguments for Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, proceedings with disputed material fact arguments for proceedings under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes; (b) Petitioner's argument that his Juris Doctorate training and related legal work experience met the statutory requirements of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes, was a statutory construction/legal argument presented in the guise of factual issues; (c) The Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to decide constitutional validity arguments in a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding; and (d) Petitioner's argument that he is entitled to licensure by default due to the failure of the agency to meet the 90-day time requirement of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, is a legal issue in light of the tolling provision of Section 493.6108, Florida Statutes. In a footnote to the Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, Respondent referred to two documents that Respondent attached as a courtesy to Petitioner. The first document was Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50. This letter responded to a specific inquiry, determining that an attorney, who was not a member of the Florida Bar and who wanted to perform sub-contract investigative work for a licensed private investigation agency, was not exempt under Section 493.6102(6), Florida Statutes, from having to separately qualify for "C" licensure requirements. The second document was Respondent's internal memorandum, identified herein as Opinion No. 92-4. This memorandum determined that legal training and work experience of attorneys do not automatically qualify them for a Class "C" license. Instead, each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis. On October 10, 2000, Petitioner filed his Request for Formal Administrative Hearing, citing Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, as authority to challenge certain of Respondent's rules and statements defined as rules. Petitioner claims that Respondent routinely applies heightened scrutiny to applications submitted by attorneys, persons who are qualified to be attorneys, or others who have research and investigative skills but no actual police or criminal justice experience. Petitioner's hearing request first argues that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, together with its attachments, all of which are referenced above, set forth policies having the effect of rules. In Petitioner's "First Rule Challenge," he argues that Respondent's interpretation of the time limitations for processing license applications in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, together with Respondent's interpretation of the tolling provisions of Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, constitute a rule. Petitioner concludes that Respondent is without delegated legislative authority to extend the 90-day application processing time of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, unless Respondent does not receive the fingerprint investigation report required by Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, prior to the expiration of the 90-day processing period. Petitioner's "Second Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4, a memorandum dated January 23, 1992, constitutes a rule because: (a) Respondent uses the opinion to define the "practice of law"; and (b) Respondent relies on the opinion in refusing to recognize experience gained by lawyers in the practice of their profession unless the lawyer was engaged in "full-time investigative work." However, Respondent concludes by acknowledging that the opinion recommends a case-by-case analysis of each attorney's application to determine whether the attorney has the experience and training required by Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's "Third Rule Challenge" also argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4 constitutes a rule. According to Petitioner, Respondent relies on the opinion to find that an attorney, even if a member of the Florida Bar, lacks creditable "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration." See Section 493.6203(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner concludes that Respondent does not have authority to interpret the meaning of the statutory term, "related to," so narrowly. Petitioner's hearing request did not include a "Fourth Rule Challenge." Petitioner's "Fifth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50, dated October 20, 1992, is an unpromulgated rule. Petitioner claims that Respondent relies on this opinion to set broad policy concerning the agency's treatment of the experience and educational qualification of unlicensed attorneys. Petitioner states that the opinion infringes on the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Bar. Petitioner asserts that he is substantially affected because he is an unlicensed attorney. Petitioner's "Sixth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend is an unpromulgated rule. Specifically, Petitioner claims Respondent created a rule by refusing to credit applicants with work experience that is not "verifiable by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work." According to Petitioner, Respondent has no authority to establish such an agency specific meaning of the common term, "verifiable experience." Petitioner's "Seventh Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent has adopted a special meaning for the term "private investigation" which contravenes the statute. Petitioner takes issue with Respondent's interpretation of "private investigation" as defined in Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes. Petitioner also challenges Respondent's interpretation of the experience requirement of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has withdrawn his "Eighth Rule challenge" regarding the validity of Rule 1C-3.100(3)(a), Florida Administrative.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient experience in private investigative work to qualify her for licensure as a Class "C" private investigator under Section 493,306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Findings Of Fact In July, 1980, Applicant applied for a Class "C" license as a private detective. By letter dated April 9, 1981, the Department denied the requested license solely on the ground that she failed to meet the minimum "2 years experience and/or training" requirement of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980. 2/ The Department concedes that, except for her alleged lack of investigative experience, she is qualified for the requested license. (Stipulation of counsel; R-1, R-2) Since 1973, Applicant has engaged in the business of furnishing for- hire private investigative services under the name of ABC Locating Service, a business located in Orange Park, Florida. She started the business as a modest venture; she was unaware that a private investigator's license was required and was also unsure of her ability to conduct private investigations. (Testimony of Applicant.) Over the years, her small and tentative investigation agency has grown into a substantial business. Since January, 1978, she has conducted more than 200 private investigations; from 1979 to 1980, her investigations consumed over 5,000 hours. The gross receipts from her investigative work exceeded $8,400 during 1978 and $12,100 during 1979. If issued a license by the Department, she plans to expand her activities and relocate her business to a commercial office building. 3/ (Testimony of Applicant; P-3) In the operation of her business, Applicant has conducted numerous private investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to: (a) the identify, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, and character of persons; (b) the credibility of witnesses and other persons; (c) the whereabouts of missing persons; (d) the location of lost or stolen property; and (e) the preparation and trial of civil or criminal cases. 4/ Several typical investigations are described below: February, 1977; Criminal Investigation (four weeks): A mother hired Applicant to investigate son's arrest on shoplifting charges. Applicant questioned merchant about incident and investigated behavior and past records of son's accomplices; investigation revealed that client's son had a peripheral role in crime and resulted in his receiving a probationary sentence rather than imprisonment. December, 1979; Criminal Investigation (nine months): A teenager hired Applicant to investigate the circumstances surrounding his conviction on drug-related charges and placement in the Lancaster Correctional Institution for a six-year term. She investigated witnesses and police officers, examined court records, and identified conflicting accounts of the incident. The evidence she gathered was presented to a court, and resulted in her client's release and placement on five years' probation. August, 1977 Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant visited subject's place of employment, questioned his coworkers and placed under surveillance the bar which he commonly frequented. Eventually, the subject visited the bar and left in the company of a female with whom he spent the night. This information, with photographs, was presented to Applicant's client and led to a dissolution of the marriage. November, 1980; Surveillance Investigation (four weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband. After questioning the subject's friends and placing him under surveillance, Applicant gathered evidence indicating that he was having an illicit relation- ship with another woman and using heavy drugs. August, 1977; Missing Person Investigation (approximately ten days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing daughter. Applicant inter- viewed subject's friends, checked popular gathering places for teenagers, and eventually located her daughter at a local movie theater. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (three days): A wife hired Applicant to investigate conduct, habits, and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant placed him under surveillance and discovered that he was suffering from a serious drinking problem. February, 1979; Missing Person Investigation (three days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing 12-year-old son. Applicant found the subject by visiting his school and interrogating his friends and classmates. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A mother hired Applicant to locate and identify an individual who was selling illicit drugs to her son. With the assistance of the Orange Park Police Department, Applicant conducted a joint undercover investigation; she made a "buy" using marked money which resulted in the drug dealer's arrest and conviction. (Testimony of Harvey, Kosobud, Franasiak, Rose; P-3.) On several occasions, Applicant worked closely with and assisted Sergeant Mike Probst, Orange Park Police Department, in recovering stolen property and locating missing persons. Information which she gave to Sergeant Probst resulted in several drug arrests and convictions. (Testimony of Applicant; P-2.) Prior to opening ABC Locating Service, Applicant applied for and obtained a Clay County occupational license to engage in business as a clairvoyant. (She testified that she has unique psychic abilities which have sometimes proven helpful in locating missing persons.) Although she still has a clairvoyant license, she has little time available to practice that occupation; almost all of her energies are devoted to her investigation service. The two occupations are unrelated in that when she occasionally practices as a clairvoyant, she operates out of a separate building and keeps a separate set of business records. (Testimony of Applicant.) As part of her second application for a private investigator's license, Applicant executed an Affidavit of Experience (on a one-page Department form) attesting that she had conducted over 400 private investigations in the last three years; that those investigations involved locating missing persons, checking the background of employees and in-laws, recovering stolen property, investigating thefts, and aiding in the defense of accused persons. In an effort to supply additional specific information, she attached a 4 1/2 page, single-spaced description of 17 separate private investigations she had conducted from 1977 to 1980. In spite of this seemingly ample description and substantiation of her investigative experience, the Department concluded that "according to [its] . . . investigative report, you [Applicant] do not meet the [experience] requirements" for licensure. (R-1, R-2.) Yet, at hearing, the Department presented no investigator, no investigative report, no witnesses, and no evidence to rebut or controvert the testimony of Applicant. The only affirmative position taken by the Department was that the burden was on Applicant to demonstrate investigative experience sufficient for licensure under Chapter 493, Part 1, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue Applicant a private investigator's Class "C" license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner Gilbert Hevia's application for a Class "C" private investigator's license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On November 18, 1993, Petitioner submitted an application dated October 18, 1993, to the Department for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Paragraph 8 of the application directed the applicant to list the sponsor and time period for any internship he had completed. Petitioner listed an internship under the sponsorship of Carlos A. Fernandez for the period from March 15, 1991 through September 17, 1993. In a letter dated February 24, 1994, Cindi Merritt, a Service Representative for the Department's Bureau of License Issuance, advised Petitioner that the Department was investigating his experience for the Class "C" license. The letter confirmed that the Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for investigative experience under the sponsorship of Mr. Rolando Baldomero of Tri-Star Security Systems, Inc. ("Tri-Star") from June 10, 1991 through August 1991. The record in this proceeding does not reveal how the Department became aware of Petitioner's experience with Mr. Baldomero since that internship is not listed on Petitioner's application. Apparently, Petitioner presented some supplemental information to the Department to be considered. However, it is not clear when or how such information was presented. At the hearing, the Department agreed that Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for his internship with Tri-Star. The February 24, 1994 letter states that the Department's service representative "asked Mr. Carlos A. Fernandez (who sponsored you after Mr. Baldomero) to complete the completion/termination of Sponsorship Form. Mr. Fernandez sent the completed form back on February 22, 1994. He indicated that he could not supply your dates of employment because he no longer had your records. He also stated 90 percent of your job duties entailed office work and that you did not successfully complete your internship with him." As set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, counsel for the parties apparently discussed and agreed prior to the commencement of the hearing in this matter that the sole issue to be resolved in this case was whether Petitioner's employment with Mr. Fernandez's company, CAF Associates, Inc. ("CAF"), qualified as lawfully gained investigative experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. Mr. Fernandez testified at the hearing and claimed that Petitioner's job duties with his company were mainly clerical and only 10 percent of Petitioner's work was investigative in nature. This contention is rejected as not credible. Mr. Fernandez has apparently decided to try to thwart Petitioner's effort to obtain his own license. The more persuasive evidence established that, from at least March of 1992 through September of 1993, Petitioner was intricately involved in all aspects of the operations of CAF, which is a private investigative agency. At some point during this time period, Petitioner was made President of the company. Respondent worked 45-60 hours a week for CAF. He did field work on his own and with subcontractors of the company. He was also actively involved in the administration of the business, but he only spent 5-15 hours per week on administrative duties. In sum, the evidence conclusively established that Petitioner had qualifying experience under Mr. Fernandez for at least eighteen (18) months from March of 1992 through September of 1993. It appears that Petitioner actually began working for Mr. Fernandez prior to March of 1992, but the exact date his employment began has not been established in this proceeding. Furthermore, it is not clear that Petitioner's job duties prior to March of 1992 would qualify as experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. As noted above, there is no dispute that Petitioner obtained two (2) months of qualifying experience with Tri-Star Security from June of 1991 through August of 1991. The evidence also conclusively established that Petitioner obtained qualifying experience with CAF from March, 1992 through September 1993. The evidence was not conclusive as to Petitioner's activities from August 1991 through March 1992. Thus, the evidence presented only established that Petitioner had twenty (20) months of qualifying experience. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had several other forms of experience that qualified for credit under Section 493.6023(4), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner contended that he had successfully completed some college coursework in criminal justice and had also completed some law enforcement training. These items are not listed on his application. Petitioner testified that he completed two semesters of college work in "pre-law." No evidence was presented as to the specific courses taken, how many hours were completed or how such coursework should be translated into credit for purposes of the experience requirement of the statute. Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner submitted certain additional information which he contends supports his claim to experience arising from matters not previously considered by the Department. As discussed in more detail below, the evidence presented was not sufficient to reach a conclusion as to the amount of credit, if any, which should be afforded to Petitioner for these matters. However, in view of the confusion arising from the stipulation as to the scope of the hearing, these matters should be reviewed and considered by the Department prior to the entry of a Final Order in this case. With his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner filed a Certificate of Completion awarded to him by the Southeast Florida Institute of Criminal Justice/Miami-Dade Community College. This information was apparently not provided to the Department when it initially reviewed Petitioner's application. The certificate indicates that Petitioner completed a course for "State Certified Security Training for "D" License" on September 13, 1990. Petitioner contends that this certificate evidences completion by Petitioner of "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration" or "law enforcement-related training received from any federal, state, county, or municipal agency" as described in Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. The Department has not commented on whether this program can qualify under the statute. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to conclude how much, if any, credit should be given to Petitioner for the completion of the training for the class "D" license. During the hearing, Petitioner claimed that his work experience while a member of the United States Marine Corps should also be considered towards the experience necessary for licensing. The evidence established that Petitioner was stationed in the Persian Gulf from approximately November 1990, through April 1991. During that period, he was assigned to an intelligence officer who was responsible for investigations and hearings in a wide variety of matters. Petitioner claims his job duties included investigation and quasi-law enforcement duties. Petitioner did not list his military experience on his application. Section VI of the Class "C" license application states that "if military experience is to be used towards satisfaction of the experience requirement . . ., a copy of [the Respondent's] DD 214 must be provided with the application." The required form has not been provided so Petitioner's military experience has not been verified. The Department contends that Petitioner deliberately submitted a misleading application that claimed he was employed by CAF from March 1991 through September 1993. The evidence presented in this case is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. There is obviously some confusion as to when Petitioner actually began working for CAF. This confusion has been exacerbated by Mr. Fernandez's claim that Petitioner's employment records have been lost. The more persuasive evidence in this case established that Mr. Fernandez has sought to keep Petitioner from obtaining a license. Petitioner apparently thought there was little doubt that he met the experience requirement. His application failed to list several matters that could potentially be credited towards the total experience needed for licensure. The evidence in this case, however, is insufficient to conclude that the twenty- four (24) month total has been met.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner has gained eighteen (18) months of verifiable full-time experience or training as a result of his employment with CAF and two (2) months as a result of his employment with Tri-Star. Petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to produce additional evidence within sixty (60) days to establish that he has met the remaining four (4) months experience requirement. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of December 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 7th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Addressed in the preliminary statement and in Findings of fact five (5). Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Fernandez was a formal sponsor pursuant to Section 493.6116. Rejected as argumentative. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven (7). (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact seven (7). Addressed in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact eleven (11). Subordinate to Findings of Fact twelve (12). Subordinate to Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact one (1) and two (2). Subordinate to Findings of Fact two (2) and fourteen (14). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Subordinate to Findings of Fact five (5), six (6), and seven (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact three (3) and seven (7). COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 J. James Donnellan, III, Esquire 1900 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 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 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
Findings Of Fact On or about January 25, 1983, Petitioner, Bruce Hahn, submitted an application for licensure as a Class A Private Investigative Agency to the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Hearing. Thereafter, on April 5, 1983, he submitted an amendment to the application applying as well for a Class C Private Investigator's License. The Class A License was granted. On his application Petitioner indicated he had been arrested for disorderly conduct and assault but had not been convicted of either. Records of the Circuit/County Court for Broward County, Florida, reflect that he was arrested for armed robbery, a felony, in Pompano Beach, Florida, on or about February 15, 1981, but was tried on a lesser offense of assault, a misdemeanor. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but Petitioner was sentenced to six (6) months report probation. Based on this, Respondent, on June 17, 1983, denied Petitioner's application for a Class C License. Grounds for denial cited the time were that Petitioner has been found guilty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license was to be held, regardless of adjudication, and the commission of an assault except in self-defense or the defense of a client, both of which related to his February 14, 1981 arrest. According to Pan Pingree, Respondent considered the court ruling on the assault a determination of Petitioner's guilt of a criminal charge relating to the business of private investigation because in that job, he would have to be involved with the public. Respondent considers the statutory grounds for denial, as above, as a legislative fiat to consider crimes of violence in determining whether an applicant is fit to hold a license. Petitioner's offense was considered to be a crime of violence based on the assault which is specifically listed in the statutes. In addition, it was considered that the job of private investigation involves stress situations and the licensing agency must be satisfied licensees can be depended upon to react properly. In making the decision to deny, Respondent carefully considered the arresting officer's report, the court charge, and the form on which the court listed its action withholding adjudication of guilt, and sentence. Petitioner contends he tried to submit his explanatory information to Respondent by phone, but admits he did not do so in writing. He contends he was interviewed by two (2) investigators to whom he told his story, who indicated to him there was no problem. Notwithstanding Petitioner's phone call to a secretary at the Division of Licensing and his attorney's phone call to Ms. Pingree (which she does not recall), there is no evidence that Respondent considered anything other than the documents referred to above in making its decision to deny him the Class C License. In authorizing the Class A, Agency License, Respondent concluded that since Petitioner would have to have a manager who had a Class C License for the agency, this would insulate the owner (Petitioner) from the public, providing a degree of protection to the public. At the time of the offense on which the denial was based, Petitioner was working for the Broward County (Florida) Building and Zoning office. At the time of the hearing, he was employed as an investigator for the Broward County Coroner. According to the Affidavit of Experience submitted with his application, Petitioner had previously been licensed as a Private investigator under State license #1052-A, doing business as Hahn Investigative Services, in Hollywood, Florida, during 1975 through 1977. On the night of the offense, Petitioner, who had just undergone a divorce and was feeling sorry for himself, contends he was called to meet a friend of his at the lounge outside of which he was arrested. Unfortunately, he had too many drinks without eating and, on the way to his car to go home, he got sick to his stomach. He went behind a dumpster to vomit. While he was doing this, he heard steps behind him and, knowing he was in an unsavory area, he became concerned. When he turned around, he saw two (2) men behind him and said to them, "I don't want to get my ass kicked and I'm drunk. Leave me alone." At this point, he raised his hands. On cross examination, Petitioner admitted he was so drunk on the night in question he does not remember what time he went to the dumpster. He could not even find his car. Based on this admission, it is most likely he could not remember his words with such clarity and it is so found. The arresting officer's report shows that when he arrived at the scene he observed an individual who matched the Petitioner's description, standing in the parking lot with his hands raised consistent with Petitioner's story. However, based on the report of another individual present, and not upon his own observation, he arrested the petitioner, not as the victim, but as the perpetrator of the offense. Petitioner contends that at the time he owned an $85,000.00 home and drove a Cadillac Seville to indicate he had no reason to steal, and he categorically denies he had a weapon or tried to assault or rob anyone. Though no weapon was found on the Petitioner, he does own one which, at the time in question, was in his nightstand at home. He does not now nor did he then have a permit to carry it. He was not carrying his wallet at the time of his arrest because, he contends, during the evening, he knocked over a chair in the bar and broke it and the bartender kept his wallet as security for the damage. Petitioner claims he has no drinking problem now. He also contends, and there was no evidence to show otherwise, that he has no other arrest record nor was any disciplinary action taken against him at work because of this. At the time of his plea of Nolo Contendere, the court case had been set for hearing on three different occasions all of which had been cancelled. The suspense, he states, was eating him up because in his mind he had done nothing wrong. It is his testimony that when he explained all this to the judge, he said he understood and it was Hahn's attorney who advised him to enter that plea. Though he was sentenced in July to six (6) months probation, he did so well, he was released from probation the day before Thanksgiving--somewhat early. If he is granted his Class C License it is his intention to form a partnership to perform star escort service and do missing children work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Respondent deny Petitioner's application for a Class C Private Investigator's License. RECOMMENDED This 28th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pam Pingree, Chief Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman D. Zimmerman, Esquire 737 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 28, 2002, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator License, number C87-00343, as well as a Class "E" Recovery Agent License, number E87-00046. By Final Order dated January 22, 2002 (Final Order) Petitioner determined that Respondent had conducted or advertised the business of a private investigative agency without a valid Class A license, and had performed the services of a private investigator after his Class C private investigator license had been suspended. Baro was fined for this conduct, and ordered to cease and desist from such activities until such time as he was properly licensed. Baro did not appeal the Final Order. Baro subsequently violated the Final Order by advertising his availability to serve as a private investigator in Palm Beach County, Florida, without first obtaining the requisite licensure. On or about January 14, 2002, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent subcontracted investigative work to CTC International Group, a licensed Florida investigative agency. At that time, Baro did not have a Florida private investigative agency license. In July, 2001, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Baro was working for Mrs. William LeNeve, who was embroiled in a contentious divorce. Baro's services to Mrs. LeNeve included concealing her whereabouts from her husband. Desperate for money, Baro approached Mr. LeNeve and offered to switch sides and help locate Mr. LeNeve’s wife and children for a price to be agreed upon. By way of defense, Baro contends that Petitioner is conducting a "vendetta" because, "[O]pposing Counsel did not appreciate my telling him years ago that I thought what they did to me then amounted to nothing short of extortion." See Baro's letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated April 8, 2003. In a letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated March 14, 2002, Baro asserted, "I know that we can clearly show that the states(sic)case is unjust and that Mr. Bensko's only motivation is a personal vendetta. I would very much like the opportunity to prove that." Baro made no attempt to back up the claim of improper motivation. To be clear, the record--both before and after Baro was represented by counsel--is completely devoid of any evidence that the Petitioner has acted improperly, or is improperly motivated with respect to Baro.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Class "C" Private Investigator License and the Class "E" Recovery Agent License, held by Respondent be revoked and that he be fined $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Alex Marrero, age 27, has never been convicted of a crime. He became a Dade County police officer in 1975. During his work as a police officer he received numerous commendations and citations from the Kiwanis Club and his supervisors for outstanding service. One year he was Officer of the Month once, and runner-up for Officer of the Year. During the course of his employment as a police officer, however, the Petitioner became one of the subjects of an investigation by the Internal Security Bureau of the Dade County Public Safety Department, which related to the arrest and beating of Arthur McDuffie on the night of December 17, 1979. As a result of this investigation, the Petitioner was discharged as a police officer on February 1, 1980, by the Director of Public Safety. The Petitioner's termination from employment was reviewed by a hearing examiner for Dade County at hearings held on April 29 and May 15, 1981, which resulted in the issuance of a recommendation dated June 19, 1981, that the discharge of the Petitioner be upheld. Thereupon, on July 16, 1981, the County notified the Petitioner that his dismissal from service was confirmed. The Petitioner admitted the fact that the recommendation of the hearing examiner was based upon findings that he used unnecessary force in the arrest of Arthur McDuffie which contributed to his death. He also admitted that the hearing officer found that he had tampered with evidence to make the death of McDuffie appear to have been accidental. No administrative or judicial review of the Petitioner's discharge as a police officer has been undertaken. Previously, in 1979, the Petitioner was charged with second degree murder and manslaughter and brought to trial in Circuit Court. The Petitioner pleaded self-defense, and he was found not guilty on all counts by a jury. There have been no other incidents in his life questioning his honesty or good moral character, according to the Petitioner. Prior to his employment as a police officer the Petitioner worked for Preventative Security Service and Investigation, Inc. Since his termination as a police officer he has resumed investigative work with this employer, and he has also worked for a jewelry company in Miami as a security consultant. The Petitioner contends that the same facts were before both the jury and the hearing officer relative to the arrest and beating of Arthur McDuffie, and that his acquittal by the jury after a trial wherein over ten witnesses were heard, is entitled to more weight than an administrative proceeding where only two witnesses testified. However, the jury verdict of not guilty after a self- defense plea, without more, is not subject to only a single interpretation. There is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that the death of Arthur McDuffie was justifiable or excusable. The only import of the jury's acquittal of the Petitioner is that he is not guilty of the crimes charged. Acts which might not be criminal offenses, or which may not have been proven sufficiently so as to warrant a conviction, may nevertheless be the basis for administrative proceedings and receive different treatment. Further, the Petitioner presented no evidence to corroborate his own assertions relative to his character, past record, etc. In view of the circumstances surrounding the termination of the Petitioner's employment as a police officer by Dade County, there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner meets the good character requirement for a private investigative agency license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Alex Marrero for a Class A Private Investigative Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward J. O'Donnell, Esquire Suite 300 1125 N.E. 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
