The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the renewal of her Class "D" license to serve as a private security officer?
Findings Of Fact Respondent licenses and regulates persons who hold Class "D" private security officer licenses. This licensure and regulation is in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Petitioner held a Class "D" private security officer license. When Petitioner sought the renewal of that license, the license was denied for the reasons that have been stated. At times relevant to the inquiry, Petitioner worked for Giddens Security Corporation, which provided security for businesses located in Duval County, Florida. At times relevant to the inquiry, Terry H. Conners was a night supervisor for Giddens Security. He was responsible for checking the attendance of private security officers employed by Giddens Security at job sites. Centex Corporation was a client of Giddens Security in Duval County, Florida. Centex had a housing project that consisted of three completed model homes and other construction. The expectation was that the private security officer working for Giddens Security would patrol the area of the model homes and the balance of the construction site to make certain that unauthorized persons did not trespass. On June 25, commencing at 6:00 p.m. through June 26, 1997, at 6:00 a.m., Petitioner was responsible for performing the security patrol at the Centex location. At 1:35 a.m., June 26, 1997, Mr. Conners arrived at the Centex location. Petitioner was not on duty. Petitioner had abandoned her assignment as a security officer and responsibility to protect the property interest of Centex at that location. Mr. Conners ascertained that Petitioner was missing from her post by searching the entire area which Petitioner was responsible for patrolling. Mr. Conners assumed the duty of security officer on that occasion from approximately 1:35 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., June 26, 1997. Petitioner never returned to her post. Lieutenant Michael Batchelor was another supervisor employed by Giddens Security at times relevant to the inquiry. Among his responsibilities was the supervision of security officers working for Giddens Security at the construction site for Flournoy Construction Company, in Duval County, Florida. Petitioner had been assigned to work at the Flournoy site from 6:00 p.m. July 6, 1997, to 6:00 a.m. July 7, 1997, in the capacity of a security officer. Lieutenant Batchelor arrived at the Flournoy Construction site around 1:05 a.m. July 7, 1997. He went there specifically to give the key to the gate at the site to the security officer on duty. Lieutenant Batchelor could not locate the Petitioner at the site. Lieutenant Batchelor then undertook the responsibility to secure the Flournoy site from the time of his arrival until 6:00 a.m., July 7, 1997. During that time Petitioner never appeared at the site. Petitioner's responsibilities for patrolling the Flournoy Construction site were the same as those for the Centex site. Petitioner was expected to secure the property at the Flournoy site and keep persons from trespassing there. As with the circumstances with the Centex site, for the period that the supervisor was in attendance and Petitioner was not, Petitioner had abandoned her post at the Flournoy Construction site.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denys Petitioner her renewal of the Class "D" private security officer license which she held. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberely Webber 6756 103rd Street Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michele Guy, Esquire Department of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondents on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The essence of the alleged misconduct is that the Respondents have conducted or advertised the business of a recovery agent without a valid Class "R" Recovery Agency license.
Findings Of Fact Rhonda L. Peroutka has a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license, Number CC99-00699, issued by the Petitioner agency. Rhonda L. Peroutka, in her capacity as President of A People Finder, Inc., holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license, Number A97-00289, and a Class "ZA" Organizational Officer Position license, Number ZA97-00405, both issued by the Petitioner agency. Beginning on January 8, 1999, and continuing to the date of the final hearing in this case, the Respondents have been engaged in business activities in the State of Florida that involve the performance of repossessions for consideration. During the period of time mentioned above, the Respondents regularly and frequently entered into contracts with the Superior Bank in New Jersey to repossess motor vehicles in the State of Florida on which the Superior Bank had a lien. Pursuant to those contracts, the Respondents acted in the capacity of an independent contractor of the bank for the purpose of repossessing specific motor vehicles identified by the bank. The contracts between Superior Bank and the Respondents specifically authorized and directed the Respondent, A People Finder, Inc., to repossess a specifically described motor vehicle. Such contracts did not authorize the Respondents to forward or to subcontract the repossession authorization. Nevertheless, the regular practice of the Respondents is to subcontract the repossession work to licensed recovery agencies throughout the State of Florida. The subcontracting licensed recovery agencies perform the actual repossessions of the motor vehicles the Superior Bank seeks to have repossessed. Following a successful recovery of a motor vehicle, the subcontracting licensed recovery agencies bill the Respondents for their services. Thereupon, the Respondents advise Superior Bank of the successful recovery, and the Respondents submit a bill to Superior Bank for repossessing the motor vehicle. The Respondents do not advise Superior Bank that the actual repossession was performed by a subcontractor. The bills submitted by the Respondents to Superior Bank typically list as separate items a repossession fee, an administrative fee, and any miscellaneous costs associated with the repossession, such as the cost of making keys. Superior Bank pays the entire amount of the bill to the Respondents. When Superior Bank pays for a repossession, the entire amount of the payment is deposited into an escrow account controlled by the Respondents. Thereafter, the Respondents pay from the escrow account the amount due to the subcontracting licensed recovery agency, and they pay to A People Finder, Inc., the administrative fee that was charged to Superior Bank. The Respondents agree with the licensed recovery agencies with whom they contract to hold them "harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and actions including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from and arising out of your efforts to collect and/or repossess. . . ." However, the Respondents do not carry insurance for the actions of a recovery agency during the course of a repossession. Neither of the Respondents has a recovery agency license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondents are guilty of the violations charged and imposing the following penalties: (a) a one-year suspension of all licenses held by the Respondents; (b) an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 against Respondent, A People Finder, Inc.; and (c) an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 against Respondent, Rhonda L. Peroutka. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 16th day of December, 1999.
Findings Of Fact During the period January 26, 1994, to September 28, 1994, in Broward County, Florida, Respondent performed the services of a private investigator without a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License. 1/ Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of persons providing private investigative, private security, and private repossession services in Florida pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent first applied to Petitioner for licensure as a private investigator on October 4, 1994. At no time prior to that application was the Respondent licensed as a private investigator by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by American Recovery Specialist of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (American Recovery). On January 1994, American Recovery was employed by Riverside National Bank (Riverside) to locate Ms. Chaan S. Capps and her 1993 Nissan Maxima that she had financed through Riverside. Respondent performed investigative services pertaining to this account with Riverside in January and February 1994. Matthew Ross is the boyfriend of Ms. Capps. Mike Levine and Matthew Ross are friends. On January 26, 1994, Respondent called Mike Levine pertaining to this investigation. During this telephone conversation, Respondent identified himself to Mr. Levine as a detective from the Metro-Dade Police Department and asked him questions about Ms. Capps. Frances Ross is the mother of Matthew Ross. On February 9, 1994, Matthew Ross found one of the Respondent's business cards in the gate of his mother's residence. The business card contained Respondent's name, the name of his employer, and his telephone number. The card also contained the handwritten notation "call ASAP." Mr. Ross called from his mother's house the telephone number listed on the business card and he spoke with the Respondent. Respondent told Mr. Ross during this telephone conversation on February 9, 1995, that he was an investigator with the Metro-Dade Police investigating the Chaan Capps case. The conversation between Respondent and Mr. Ross terminated when Mr. Ross became upset, handed the telephone to his mother, and walked out of the house. Respondent thereafter told Frances Ross that Ms. Capps was wanted by Metro-Dade Police and that he was investigating the case for Metro-Dade Police.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and imposes administrative fines against the Respondent as follows: An administrative fine in the amount of $100 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 November, 1995.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Frank Wallberg was going through a divorce and wanted a background investigation on his wife's attorney. On June 19, 1992, he went to the office of South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc. (Respondent Bureau) and specifically requested the services of William Polero (Respondent W. Polero) who he had met a few years prior to this. Respondent Bureau's secretary contacted Respondent W. Polero by telephone, and Wallberg explained to him what he wanted. Respondent W. Polero agreed to perform the background investigation on the attorney, requiring Wallberg to first pay a $1,500 retainer which he was to bring to Respondent W. Polero's home, approximately two blocks from Respondent Bureau's office. As agreed, Wallberg met Respondent W. Polero at his home and gave him a check for $1,500 as a retainer, made payable to Respondent Bureau. For the $1,500 Respondent W. Polero indicated that a complete written report on the attorney could be performed. Wallberg provided Respondent W. Polero with the attorney's complete name, address and telephone number. Respondent W. Polero made several telephone calls while Wallberg was at his home, attempting to obtain information on the attorney but all were unsuccessful. Approximately two days later, Wallberg contacted Respondent W. Polero inquiring about the progress of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero indicated that he was waiting for responses from inquiries and to contact him again that following Friday. Wallberg called back as directed. Respondent W. Polero indicated that after searching public records and court records and contacting The Florida Bar and other attorneys, the attorney had nothing irregular in his background. Feeling that he had not gotten his money worth, Wallberg questioned the cost of the investigation. Respondent W. Polero responded that there was nothing else to report, so there was nothing to report in writing and that the cost of the investigation was $1,500. By that time, the $1,500 check had been cashed. Being very disappointed, on or about July 11, 1992, Wallberg contacted another investigative agency, the Wackenhut Corporation, and obtained their services. He provided Wackenhut's investigator, John Rose, with the same information that he had provided Respondent W. Polero, i.e., the attorney's name, address and telephone number. On July 13, 1992, Rose began his investigation. By July 15, 1992, Rose had completed his investigation and prepared an 18 page written report with numerous exhibits attached. His report reflected the numerous sources he utilized, which included researching public records at the Dade County Courthouse, records maintained by the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, including vehicle and driver license information, criminal records maintained by Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department and public records of The Florida Bar. Through these sources, Rose was able to obtain a plethora of information on the attorney, including a history of federal and state tax liens having been filed against the attorney's property, criminal arrests and convictions, and disciplinary action against the attorney by The Florida Bar, with the specifics thereon. With his written report, Rose submitted an itemized invoice dated July 15, 1992, for his services, totaling $650.30. The invoice reflected that he had expended 10 hours on the investigation (generally outlining what was done), at a charge of $60 an hour, equalling $600 for the time, and that there were $50.30 in additional costs ($27 document copies, $2 for parking and $21.30 for mileage). By letter dated September 23, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondents that he had obtained the services of Wackenhut Corporation and requested that they provide Wackenhut with all the information in their file when requested by Wackenhut. By fax transmission on that same date, Jamie Polero (Respondent J. Polero), President of Respondent Bureau and the son of Respondent W. Polero, responded indicating, among other things, that there was no new or different information from what Respondent W. Polero had provided him and that since Wallberg had not contacted them for almost three months, he had assumed that Wallberg did not wish to continue the investigation. This was the first time that Wallberg had had any contact with Respondent J. Polero. By letter dated September 24, 1992, which was mailed and faxed, Wallberg informed Respondent J. Polero of his dissatisfaction with the investigation performed by Respondent Bureau and requested a $1,350 refund of the $1,500 within 24 hours. Wallberg never received any refund. Several communications between Wallberg and Respondent J. Polero failed to resolve the dispute. Finally, Wallberg contacted State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Petitioner) and filed a complaint. Respondent Bureau's investigative file for Wallberg consisted of nine pages, most of which were communications back and forth with Wallberg. Approximately eight hours were expended on Wallberg's case. Even though little investigative work was done, Respondent J. Polero admitted that most of it was performed by Respondent W. Polero, and not by himself. The investigative work performed by Respondents failed to meet industry standards in that the minimum investigation was not conducted, public records were not properly researched and false information was provided to Wallberg, their client. At all times material hereto, Respondent W. Polero was unlicensed. At all times material hereto, Respondent J. Polero was a licensed private investigator (Class "C" license) and a licensed recovery agent (repossessor) (Class "E" license). Also, at all times material hereto, Respondent Bureau was a licensed private investigative agency (Class "A" license) and a licensed recovery (repossession) agency (Class "R" license). No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent J. Polero. Both Respondent Bureau and Respondent W. Polero have prior disciplinary history. In 1989, Petitioner filed administrative complaints against both Respondents for, among other things, unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to a penalty of an administrative fine totalling $1,800, 2/ which was paid on or about August 30, 1989. 3/ Additionally, in 1989, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Bureau and in 1990 against Respondent W. Polero for unlicensed activity which resulted in the parties stipulating to an administrative fine of $2,000 4/ which was paid by Respondent Bureau on or about May 25, 1990. 5/ As a related issue to the 1990 complaint, on April 27, 1990, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to Respondent W. Polero's unlicensed activity-- performing private investigative work without a license and managing a private investigative agency without a license--and served him on May 8, 1990.
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: Suspending South Florida Detective Bureau, Inc.'s Class "A" private investigative agency license and Class "R" recovery (repossession) agency license for one year and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Suspending Jamie J. Polero's Class "C" private investigator license and Class "E" recovery agent (repossessor) license for one year 6/ and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 against William Polero. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of March 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 March 1994.
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 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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the licensing of private investigators in Florida. On or about February 26, 1992, Petitioner herein, Lyman S. Bradford submitted to the Division an application for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license. On the same day, he also submitted an application for a Class "C" Private Investigator's license. In Section 12(a) of the former application and Section 7(a) of the latter, Petitioner indicated he had been convicted of attempted possession of cocaine, a misdemeanor, in 1988. He further indicated probation had been completed. On the basis of her analysis of Petitioner's applications, on March 12, 1992, Joni Rozur, the Division's reporting representative, recommended both applications be approved based on Petitioner's previous licensure as a Class "C" licensee, and noted that his experience met or exceeded the statutory requirements. She also noted, however, that approval was pending receipt of a criminal history report. When that record was received by the Division, it reflected that Petitioner had been arrested in September, 1988 for failure to appear for trial on the attempted possession charge and when brought before the court on October 20, 1988, pleaded not guilty. In November, 1988, however, Petitioner changed his plea of not guilty to nolo contendere and as a result, adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for 6 months with 15 hours community service, and ordered to pay costs. On January 5, 1989, Mr. Bradford failed to meet with his probation officer as ordered and he was brought before the court on February 15, 1989 for a preliminary hearing on a charge of violation of probation. Bond was set at $2,000.00. When he appeared in court on April 12, 1989 on the violation of probation charge, Petitioner pleaded not guilty and hearing was set for May 10, 1989. On that date, Petitioner did not appear and after several other hearings, on June 2, 1989, the judge released Petitioner from his bond on his own recognizance. At a hearing on the violation of probation charge held on August 2, 1989, Petitioner was found guilty and his prior probation was revoked. By way of sentence, he was placed on an additional 6 months probation with conditions. Court action, mostly involving Petitioner's motions for continuance, was periodic for a while, but after a motion to set aside his prior plea to the charge was denied, on December 27, 1990 Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to and was found guilty of violation of probation. He was placed on a new period of probation for 1 year with 300 hours of community service; ordered to undergo drug evaluation and treatment as necessary; ordered to be subjected to random urine testing; and ordered to serve 1 year in jail (suspended). His prior probation was revoked. The criminal information relative to Petitioner which Ms. Rozur relied on to change her recommendation to denial also included Petitioner's arrest on September 14, 1989 on a charge of trafficking in cocaine. Petitioner was tried before a jury in circuit court on that charge on August 21, 1991, and after a trial on the merits, pursuant to his plea of not guilty, was found not guilty. The evidence put before the jury during that trial consisted of the testimony of the two arresting officers who indicated they had observed the transaction and seized a substance at the scene later identified as cocaine; that of the Petitioner's co-actor in the supposed sale; and that of the confidential informant who set up the controlled buy. The evidence, as proffered through the testimony of Deputy Martinez who was present at the scene, indicated that a confidential informant had reported that a sale of cocaine, involving the Petitioner, would take place on an evening in September, 1989. After the confidential informant was given authority to set it up, the Petitioner did not appear and the officers left. Supposedly, Petitioner did appear later and when the informant called the officers again, he was told to set the buy up again another time. The second buy, at which Petitioner was allegedly the broker between the dealer and the confidential informant, took place in the parking lot of a motel in West Palm Beach on September 14, 1989. The informant was fitted with a radio transmitter for recording the conversations among the parties but it failed to work. Nonetheless, Martinez claims he saw Petitioner and his partner meet with the informant outside the motel room and the other officer purportedly overheard their conversation through the closed window. When the parties moved around to the side of the building out of sight and hearing, the two officers, accompanied by a drug detection dog, came out and arrested Petitioner and his associate. During the course of the arrest, cocaine was found both on the associate and wrapped in a pillow case in the back seat of the associate's car. Petitioner had no cocaine in his possession. On the basis of the above information relating to the Petitioner's original conviction, the subsequent violation of probation charge, and the arrest for but acquittal of a charge of trafficking in cocaine, the Division, on May 13, 1992, denied both applications by the Petitioner alleging that his criminal record, as cited, was clear and convincing evidence of a lack of good moral character. The Hearing Officer, however, over strenuous objection of counsel for Respondent, declined to consider as evidence any matters relating to the Petitioner's arrest for trafficking in cocaine on the basis that the acquittal of that offense came after a trial on the merits before a jury subsequent to a plea of not guilty. Under those circumstances, the Hearing Officer would not permit the Division to present evidence regarding the alleged commission of an offense of which the Petitioner had been found not guilty. In retrospect, however, there is some question as to whether or not that evidence should have been considered. At the hearing, Petitioner presented 4 letters from prominent attorneys in practice in southeast Florida going back to 1982 and 1987 through 1991, commenting on his excellent investigative work. In addition, Petitioner also presented 9 letters of recent date from various individuals including a detective with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, the Directress of his church's outreach ministry, the Chief of Police for Palm Beach Gardens, attorneys, a retired highway patrolman, a recovery agent, the assistant manager of the local American Cancer Society unit, and a fire battalion chief, all of whom have known the Petitioner for several years. In these letters, he is described as professional and thoroughgoing, capable, progressive, charitable, efficient, competent, trustworthy, conscientious, and possessed of good moral values and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Division of Licensing denying Petitioner's applications for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License and a Class "C" Private Investigator License at this time. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1992, 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 30th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3631S 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the last sentence which is rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. - 8. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Thomas C. Gano, Esquire Lubin & Gano, P.A. Second Floor, Flagler Plaza 1217 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida. In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license. Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property. Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report. Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates' trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably. Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations. There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished. Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it. There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled. It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit. Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative. Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself. Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra. While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible. It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile. Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver $500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people. From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 & 6. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Accepted. 12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted. First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted. Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact. First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In 1993, Respondent Carl Clausen, along with some acquaintences, was interested in opening a private investigative business or becoming associated with a private investigative agency. Mr. Clausen had an extensive background in police investigative and security work and was well qualified to be licensed as a private investigator. In pursuit of getting into the business of private investigations, Mr. Clausen attended a business recruiting meeting held by a private investigative company on March 19, 1993. Ms. Bronson, owner of Prosearch International, then the holder of a valid Class A Private Investigative Agency license, also attended the meeting where she met Respondent. After the meeting, Ms. Bronson and Respondent discussed various ways he might became associated with her investigative agency in order to expand the services Prosearch could offer potential clients. These discussions included buying part or all of Prosearch. At some point after the recruiting meeting, Ms. Gentry, a local attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, was appointed to represent a man accused of murder in Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida. Ms. Gentry felt the defense team needed an experienced investigator who could effectively work within a predominately minority community in Quincy. Ms. Gentry contacted Ed Rawls about possibly working the case. However, Mr. Rawls was a reserve Gadsden County Sheriff's Deputy, and had an obvious conflict in investigating the case for Ms. Gentry. Mr. Rawls recommended Mr. Clausen as a potential investigator. Ms. Gentry called Mr. Clausen on March 24, 1993, and requested that he come the next day for an interview. On March 25, 1993, Mr. Clausen asked Ms. Bronson to meet him for lunch to discuss her employing him as an intern private investigator. An intern private investigator holds a Class "CC" license once the sponsorship becomes effective. Eventually, the intern can obtain a Class "C" investigative license. Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson met for lunch and Ms. Bronson agreed to sponsor Mr. Clausen. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Bronson about his scheduled meeting with Ms. Gentry. Soon after the meeting, Ms. Bronson left town to take care of some personal matters. After lunch, Mr. Clausen went directly to Ms. Gentry's office for the meeting she had scheduled. Ms. Gentry interviewed Respondent to determine whether he had the experience and ability to perform the investigation she felt was necessary to prepare for her client's murder trial. Ms. Gentry discussed some general details of the case with Respondent in order to more fully assess Respondent's abilities to investigate her case should the Respondent become licensed as an investigator. Respondent did not receive the case file from Ms. Gentry, nor did Respondent receive information such as addresses which would have enabled him to begin an investigation. Ms. Gentry felt that Mr. Clausen was very well qualified. At the initial meeting Respondent made it very clear to Ms. Gentry that he would not begin any investigation until he was properly licensed or could conduct the investigation under one of the exemption categories in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, such as an employee for an attorney. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry he was not at present in business as a private investigator, but that he wanted to be and was working on the prospect. However, Ms. Gentry did not want to deal with the paperwork or potential liability of an employment relationship with Mr. Clausen. Therefore, Mr. Clausen needed to become licensed as quickly as possible so that the investigation could begin. Respondent and Ms. Gentry met again on March 30, 1993. However, the meeting contered on the quickest way Respondent could become licensed as an investigator. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry that his license would most likely be in order April 2, 1993, when Ms. Bronson, through Prosearch, would return to formalize his application at the Department of State for the internship. In short, Mr. Clausen would have a Class "CC" license. Prior to licensure as a Class "C" or "CC" licensee, Respondent did not advertise or solicit any investigative business on his behalf. Respondent only participated in an employment interview for future employment after he was licensed and discussed various methods of becoming legally able to pursue Ms. Gentry's case. Likewise no investigation was begun prior to his licensure. On April 2, 1993, Ms. Bronson filed Respondent's sponsorship papers and Respondent filed an application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Because of the sponsorship, Respondent was employed by Prosearch International, a Class "A" private investigative agency, under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Ms. Bronson furnished Mr. Clausen with letters of introduction and appointment as her investigator. These letters were given to Ms. Gentry and a contract for services was entered into. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Gentry met with Mr. Clausen at her office where he was furnished with names, addresses, physical evidence and access to Ms. Gentry's case file. The case file contained police reports and probable cause affidavits on the case. Ms. Gentry requested Mr. Clausen to proceed immediately with the investigation. Mr. Clausen began the investigation on the morning of April 7, 1993, by interviewing the defendant in jail. Around April 21, 1993, Prosearch presented its first invoice for services to Ms. Gentry. The invoice contained charges for Mr. Clausen's meetings on March 25 and 30, 1993. However, the charges were not for investigative services. Ms. Gentry felt it was appropriate for Prosearch to bill for those hours even though she was aware no investigative work had begun and she had no contract with Respondent or Prosearch until April 6, 1993. Thereafter, Gadsden County paid the first invoice to ProSearch. Aroung May 7, 1993, ProSearch submitted a second invoice to Ms. Gentry. The investigation and report were completed and delivered by Ms. Bronson to Ms. Gentry's office around June 22, 1993. Both Ms. Gentry and Ms. Bronson praised Mr. Clausen's investigation and report as excellent. From March 25, 1993, to July 3 or 4, 1993, discussions between Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson regarding the future organization and market strategy for ProSearch or another business occurred almost daily. At the July meeting it became clear that Ms. Bronson had decided to associate with two others and gave Mr. Clausen a ProSearch check for his commission on the first invoice. On July 6, 1993, Ms. Bronson sent letters firing Mr. Clausen and notifying the Division that she would no longer sponsor Mr. Clausen. However, there was still billable time for investigative services outstanding for the investigation for Ms. Gentry. Additionally, Mr. Clausen was due his commission for those hours. Ms. Bronson said she had no money to pay wages or workman's compensation and therefore did not have funds to pay Mr. Clausen's his commission or expenses. Anxious to resolve the situation and not having contact with Ms. Bronson, Mr. Clausen submitted a final invoice on Specialty Security Services, Inc., letterhead to Gadsden County. The invoice referenced the first and second ProSearch invoices, showing the first invoice as paid and the second invoice as unpaid. The Gadsden County Commission approved and paid the invoice. Mr. Clausen used Special Security Services, Inc., letterhead because his word processor is programmed to always include the "Special Security Services, Inc." (SSS) letterhead. Otherwise, Special Security Services, had no role in this matter and should be dismissed as a party. Further, none of Mr. Clausen's activities violates Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Respondent should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not violated Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 1C-3.122(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 94-0853 The facts contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Petitioner's Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The statements contained in paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The statement contained in paragraph 3, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are either introductory or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John Wardlow Attorney at Law Post Office Box 84 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
