Findings Of Fact Beginning on July 9, 1973, up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, was a registered real estate salesman under certificate no. 54569, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In the January 22, 1973 application which the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, filed for registration as a real estate salesman, he answered the question no. 9 found therein. Question no. 9 says: "Have you ever been arrested for or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgement has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted. if yes, state details in full. The answer which was given by Hal K. Johnson was, "DWI, December, 1972 & June, 1976, Failure to yield, Dec. 1972". In addition to the offenses indicated in his answer to question no. 9, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, had been arrested for a number of other offenses. On September 20, 1955, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On August 20, 1957, the Respondent had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. On January 28, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. On February 27, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On March 6, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On July 1, 1959, the Respondent had been arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On August 12, 1961, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On January 17, 1962, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On November 10, 1962, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On September 18, 1963, the Respondent was arrested for having no drivers license. On December 13, 1963, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct/drunk. On March 23, 1967, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk and profane language. On July 30, 1967, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On September 4, 1967, the Respondent was charged with reckless operation of motor vehicle, driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages. On June 5, 1968, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On July 19, 1968, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk. On April 18, 1972, the Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct/drunk.
Recommendation At the hearing, the Respondent, Hal K. Johnson, did not challenge the facts as presented in the administrative complaint. His intention in appearing at the hearing was to offer mitigation. In the way of mitigation, Mr. Johnson said that he was only given one line to answer the question no. 9, which did not provide him enough room, notwithstanding the fact that he had read the instructions which said that additional information should be provided on a separate sheet. Moreover, Mr. Johnson said that the language of question no. 9, which says "commission of an offense . . .", only calls for just one offense to be listed and he in fact listed three. He also said that he did not put some of the drunk arrests down because now they don't even require you to be arrested, they just take you someplace." In addition, he indicated that he did not know where to get the records of these arrests that had been placed against him. He said he thought that the records of these matters were found in Tallahassee, Florida. The three indications of arrests were also felt, in the mind of the Respondent, to be a sufficient indication of the 20 arrests that had been made. Finally, the Respondent said that he wants to make it clear that he didn't intend to try to make misstatements, although he agrees that he failed to elaborate, which to him was an error of omission not intent. Having considered the explanation offered by Mr. Hal K. Johnson, the Respondent, in view of the facts, it is recommended that his certificate no. 54569, as a registered real estate salesman be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Hal K. Johnson c/o Fowler Realty 8917 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact In July 1975, in Hillsborough County, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on the charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. He was placed in the Pretrial Intervention Program, which he successfully completed. As a result, formal charges were either never filed or were dismissed by the State Attorney. On January 18, 1982, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to one charge of trafficking in excess of ten thousand pounds of cannabis in Hernando County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld by the court. Petitioner was placed on probation for twelve years. On August 1, 1983, in Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere to the offenses of aggravated assault with the use of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon on or about his person. The court accepted Petitioner's pleas. Adjudications of guilt were withheld on August 1, 1983. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years, to run concurrent with his probation in Hernando County, Florida. Petitioner's probation in the trafficking case was terminated early in Hernando County, Florida, on March 14, 1985. Petitioner's probation for the aggravated assault and the concealed weapon was terminated early in Pinellas County, Florida, on December 11, 1985. Petitioner was never adjudicated guilty of the charges the Division used as the basis for the denial of his application. As a result, he has not been convicted of any of these crimes as the term "conviction" is defined in Subsection 493.6101(8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted eleven letters of good moral character from people in the community who have known him throughout the years and are aware of the prior criminal charges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern License should be granted. ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 this 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Rejected. Contrary to prehearing stipulation. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #1. Reject. Contrary to fact only one charge of trafficking in the Information and only one nolo contendere plea on a charge of trafficking. As the basis given for licensure denial was alleged trafficking charges, the importation of cannabis charge and nolo contendere plea were not considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to Subsection 493.6118(3), Florida Statutes. See Hearing Officer finding #2. Accepted. See Hearing Officer findings #3 and #5. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph H. Ficarrotta, Esquire 600 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire Honorable Jim Smith General Counsel Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Tallahassee Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman reveals that he was born in Miami, Florida, in 1960. In 1979 Petitioner asked a friend to take him to a department store so he could do some shopping. While Petitioner was inside the store shopping, his friend was stealing hub caps in the parking lot until he was caught by the police who arrested both Petitioner and his friend. Petitioner was charged with grand larceny from a building and possession of a barbiturate (methaqualone), but the charges were dropped. In 1981 Petitioner borrowed a car from an acquaintance in order to go out on a date. While Petitioner was driving the car, he was stopped for a traffic violation at which time it was discovered that the borrowed car was a rental car which had been stolen. Although Petitioner was arrested for vehicular theft of an automobile, that charge was dismissed. In 1984 while Petitioner was attempting to locate the home of a friend, he stopped at a house which turned out to. be on the wrong street. As he was returning from the front door of the house to his car, he was stopped by the police. Since the home was located in a neighborhood subject to burglaries and Petitioner did not live in that neighborhood, he was arrested and charged with trespassing and with loitering and prowling. Pursuant to the advice of his public defender, Petitioner plead to one of those charges adjudication was withheld on that charge and the other charge was dropped. Petitioner was not placed on probation and no fine was imposed on him although he believes that he paid court costs. Petitioner disclosed all of the above-described arrests to Respondent in his application for licensure although the application seeks information regarding convictions and not arrests where no conviction or adjudication ever occurs. For the past five years Petitioner has been employed by United Cerebral Palsy. His duties include vehicle maintenance, building maintenance, and lawn maintenance for two group homes. He receives weekly advances from his employer for purchasing supplies. Petitioner has been married for approximately one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, subject to the successful completion of any required examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing OFficer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Bernard Stefon Gonzalez Post Office Box 610104 North Miami, FL 33261 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801| Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a license from the Florida Real Estate Commission was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, his Background, and the Application Leroy L. Baines, Jr., was born on October 31, 1985. Currently 29 years old, he is employed with a financial services company. He serves on the board of a non-profit organization called Butterfly Foundation Group. The organization works with underprivileged and at-risk youth. He also works with J.J.’s Boxing Club and Global Village, both non-profit entities. In 2005, Mr. Baines pled no contest to a criminal traffic infraction: operating a motor vehicle without a valid license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 1”). He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. Respondent’s Ex. No. 1 at 00028. The following calendar year, 2006, Mr. Baines was convicted of driving while his license was cancelled, suspended, revoked, or he was disqualified from holding a license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 2”). Id. at 00022. In 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Baines pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty of two federal crimes: 1) conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, and 2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (the “Federal Criminal Offenses”). Id. at 00013. Mr. Baines was sentenced to 55 months imprisonment for the Federal Criminal Offenses on June 18, 2008. He served his sentence in prisons located in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. His sentence expired on June 30, 2014, and he was discharged from supervision on September 3, 2014. Id. at 00040. On April 11, 2014, Respondent received Mr. Baines’ application for licensure as a real estate associate (the “Application”). He answered “Yes” to Background Question 1, which asks, “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction . . . ?” Id. at 00010. After the background questions in the Application, the Application states, “If you answered ‘YES’ to any question in [the background questions], please refer to Section IV of the Instructions for detailed instructions on providing complete explanations, including requirements for submitting supporting legal documents.” Id. In the Application’s “Section IV(b) – Explanation(s) for Background Question 1,” Petitioner listed the Federal Criminal Offenses. For one of the two offenses under “Penalty/Disposition,” he wrote “Time Served”; for the other, he wrote “55 months.” Id. Under “Description” as to each of the two Federal Criminal Offenses, Petitioner wrote, “5 years Supervised Release.” Id. Despite the Application’s detailed instructions that require criminal traffic infractions to be listed (“This question applies to any criminal violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses . . . .” Id.), Petitioner failed to list the two Criminal Traffic Infractions. Petitioner’s Case Mr. Baines testified that his application should be granted because he has cooperated with Respondent by providing everything that was asked of him during the Application review process. Although he had not included the Criminal Traffic Infractions on the written Application, he freely admitted during the hearing it was his responsibility at the time he made out the Application to report them and to offer any relevant explanation of them. With regard to the Criminal Traffic Infractions, Mr. Baines testified he spent 30 days in the Orange County Jail. He seeks leniency in this application process based on his age at the time of the offenses which he claimed, at first, was 16. Noting the difference between his birthday and 2005 and 2006, Mr. Baines conceded during cross-examination that he was several years older than 16 at the time of the Criminal Traffic Infractions. Mr. Baines elaborated on the Federal Criminal Offenses explaining that he had fallen in with former high school friends whom he had not seen for some time when they recruited him to drive the get-away car in a robbery. He stated that at the time of the crime he was in possession of two guns both of which he had been carrying legally prior to the crime: a nine millimeter Glock and a .40 caliber handgun. Mr. Baines’ time in prison was spent without any violations of prison rules, according to his testimony, and he completed the post-release program successfully. His success in serving his time is the basis, Mr. Baines asserted, for his release from federal supervision so promptly after the expiration of the sentence. No documentation of “good behavior” in prison, however, was offered at hearing. In an attempt to demonstrate rehabilitation, Mr. Baines referred to his service to the Butterfly Foundation, J.J.’s Boxing Club, and the other two non-profit organizations with which he works that serve at-risk youth in the Pompano and Fort Lauderdale areas. He also averred that he had been cleared by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to work with underprivileged youth for cheerleading and gymnastics although he offered no supportive documentary evidence from DCF. Mr. Baines did submit to Respondent as part of his application three documents related to rehabilitation. The first extolled his work as an employee. The second was written by a teacher at Stranahan High School who is a fellow basketball player at pick-up games in a public basketball court in Plantation, Florida. The third was written by his pastor at the Living Waters Sanctuary in Oakland Park, Florida. The authors of the letters all write highly of Mr. Baines. In support of his case for rehabilitation, Mr. Baines testified that after his conviction for the Federal Criminal Offenses, he had had only one slip-up: a urinalysis (“UA”) positive for marijuana, a substance he had used as a youth. Mr. Baines claimed that the UA was conducted only because those supervising his post-release case sent him for the testing after Mr. Baines had voluntarily acknowledged his recent use of marijuana. But for the single marijuana incident, Mr. Baines asserted under oath that his record after his conviction, in prison and out of prison during a post-incarceration discharge period, had been spotless. His admirable conduct, he testified, is what led to the court to promptly release him from federal supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leroy L. Baines, Jr. 4808 Northwest 8th Court Lauderhill, Florida 33317 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Profession Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed)
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, William James Barbour, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0631568. On September 28, 1995, Respondent filed an application (dated September 22, 1995) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer yes or no to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "Yes," and attached documents relating to his arrest on June 17, 1992, and conviction on March 1, 1993, for the offense of driving under the influence. The documents further revealed that Respondent's driving privilege was revoked by the court for a six-month period (nunc pro tunc to June 17, 1992), and that by August 9, 1992, he had successfully completed the Broward County Court Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Respondent's driving privileges were restored February 25, 1993. No other offenses were disclosed on the application. The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) Following approval of Respondent's application, and his licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department discovered that on March 4, 1993, in the County Court, Dade County, Florida, Respondent was arraigned on a charge of simple battery (date of occurrence January 9, 1993), a first degree misdemeanor, proscribed by Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty; however, on March 30, 1993, the court, following hearing, found Respondent guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication. Respondent was subsequently ordered to pay $2,536 in restitution, $105.00 in court costs, and participate in a pre-trial diversion anger control class. After receipt of the foregoing information, the Department apprised Respondent of its discovery. Respondent addressed the Department's concerns by letter of September 5, 1997, as follows: After our conversation on this morning of 9-5-97 I am aware that I filled out the application for Real Estate incorrectly. At the time, my understanding to the question about an arrest or convictions on the application, was for a felony. I have had arrest but all of the 3 I've had were misdemeanors. One was for a DUI. In June of 1992 where I was found guilty and lost my Drivers License for 6 months & had to attend a counter measures class. I completed all required classes and now hold a safe Driver's Lic. I had two other arrest[s]. Both were for battery. I had to attend an advocate program for violence. I completed all classes. I believe that ajudication [sic] was witheld [sic] for both charges. I am sorry for any inconvenience that I have caused over this matter, and hope that I can continue to keep my Real Estate License. Thereafter, on November 20, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid finding of guilty to the crime of battery, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against his license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 1 At hearing, Respondent offered the following explanation for his response to item 9 of the application or, stated differently, for his failure to disclose the charge of battery for which he had been found guilty (albeit adjudication being withheld): . . . Your Honor, at the time that I had filled out the application -- okay, right before that I had been arrested for a DUI. That's one thing that I did list in the application. But at the time of the application, you know, the question had stated: If you had ever been arrested -- anyhow I answered yes to the question. But when it said to list the details, my first understanding of the question was that it was for felonies only, but the charges that I had -- I had a charge for a fight, actually two times I was arrested for fighting. And I didn't know what the outcome of the charge was to be able to list it, you know, in detail. So when I answered the question I answered yes, you know, believing that the Real Estate Commission would, you know, because it said at the end of the question your answer would be checked with state, local, and federal officials, and I didn't know the detailed charges that I was -- that were placed upon me. So I just answered the question yes figuring that they would find what the charges were. I was not trying to hide anything from the Real Estate Commission. I had great feeling that they were going to find out everything that I had been arrested for. (Transcript, at pages 4 and 5.) And, on cross-examination, Respondent responded regarding his response to the application question, as follows: Q. And in attaching materials you listed a conviction for driving under the influence charge? A. Right. Because at the time I had understood that the question was for a felony, but even still I answered it yes, because, you know, I knew the other ones were like misdemeanors or something, but I didn't know what degree or any of that, you know, so I answered yes. And the only thing I had attached was the DUI because that's the only thing that I even had paperwork on. (Transcript, at pages 7 and 8.) Apart from the foregoing incidents, Respondent has had no other involvement with the criminal justice system. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the battery charge on his application is wanting in substance, and does not detract from the conclusion that the application he submitted was false. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's answer to the question posed by the application (given the information requested and his attestation) purported to divulge every offense for which he had "been convicted . . . , found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Under such circumstances, it cannot be subject to serious debate that, when the application was submitted, Respondent knew he provided false or misleading information regarding his criminal record. In concluding that Respondent knowingly and intentionally provided false or misleading information on his application, his explanation that he lacked paper work on the battery arrest and assumed the Department would uncover the charge upon a background check, has not been overlooked; however, such explanation does not detract from the conclusion reached. Indeed, it is inherently improbable, given the proximity in time of the offenses (Respondent was convicted of DUI on March 1, 1993, and arraigned on the battery charge on March 4, 1993), that Respondent would be able to relate the particulars of the DUI conviction on his application, but not one iota of information regarding the battery charge. Rather, Respondent's failure to even mention the battery charge on his application renders his claim of reliance on the Department's investigation to uncover it ring hollow.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that for such violation, the Final Order revoke Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of September, 1998.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Community Association Manager by Examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact When Petitioner was 20 years old, he and a group of other young adults stole approximately $15 worth of chrome off of a car in a used car lot. Petitioner was arrested on November 11, 1983, by the Deland, Florida, Police Department. On February 1, 1984, Petitioner appeared in Volusia County Court and pled guilty to "Petit Theft" under Section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This offense is a second degree misdemeanor punishable as provided in Sections 775.082 or 775.083, Florida Statutes. The court withheld adjudication of guilt, placed Petitioner on six months' probation and assessed Petitioner $75 in costs. Petitioner was again arrested on March 12, 1993, by the Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, Police Department. Petitioner was charged with "Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol." Section 316.193, Florida Statutes, does not equate "Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol" with either a felony or a misdemeanor until the fourth conviction. Petitioner appeared in Volusia County Court on May 11, 1993, and pled nolo contendere to the lesser charge of "reckless driving," under Section 316.192, Florida Statutes. Florida Department of Law Enforcement documents created at the time list this charge as a first degree misdemeanor. In actuality, the offense of "reckless driving" is grouped under the "State Uniform Traffic Control" statutory Chapter. Without specifying whether or not "reckless driving" constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, Subsection 316.192(2)(a) provides that upon a first conviction of reckless driving the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500, or by both. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of "reckless driving" and assessed $300 in fines and costs. Petitioner's sentence fits the statutory category of a "first conviction," so it is concluded that this was his first reckless driving offense. There also is no evidence of any other traffic offenses committed by Petitioner. The statutory trail of "reckless driving" runs through Sections 316.192, 322.291, 318.17, and 921.0012, and the undersigned has been unable to determine that a first offense under Section 316.192 constitutes either a misdemeanor or a felony. Sections 775.04 and 775.08(2), Florida Statutes, suggest that a first offense of "reckless driving" is neither a crime nor a misdemeanor. From this information, it is concluded that there is no affirmative proof that Petitioner was convicted of a first degree misdemeanor. It is further concluded that there is no presumption created by his plea of nolo contendere to the reckless driving charge that Petitioner lost his civil rights. On February 10, 1997, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure by examination to become a Community Association Manager. Prior to his application for licensure, Petitioner had been the subject of an investigation by the Respondent Department for the unlicensed practice of community association management. As a trusted maintenance man for the same employer for over nine years, Petitioner had been trusted with money, with purchasing supplies and with doing maintenance work. He had acquitted himself honestly and honorably. Petitioner and his employer believe that the investigation arose out of a complaint that Petitioner also was giving instructions to other maintenance personnel or advising tenants, which arguably constitutes an element of the practice of Community Association Managment. They believe that the complaint was made by a rival condominium owner and/or by a resident manager whom the employer terminated. The investigation has been abated pending the instant application licensure proceeding. The application submitted by Petitioner contained the following question regarding the applicant's criminal history: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or misdemeanor? Yes ( ) No ( ). This question applies to any violation of the laws of any state, territory, or country without regard to whether the matter is under appeal or you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled or pardoned. If you answer "NO" and it is later determined that the records have not been sealed or expunged, it will be considered that you knowingly provided inaccurate information on this application. Petitioner marked the space for "No," and submitted no history of his offenses and pleas with his application. On March 12, 1997, the Agency notified Petitioner that his application was deficient because the 1983 and 1993 arrests and case dispositions were not fully disclosed and documented on his application. He was given 60 days in which to submit the required information, which he did. On May 28, 1997, Respondent sent Petitioner its Intent to Deny Community Association Manager's Application for Licensure by Examination for failure to establish good moral character as required by Section 468.433, Florida Statutes. Petitioner explained that he thought the withholding of adjudication on the second degree misdemeanor guilty plea charge meant it was erased and need not be revealed. Although Petitioner conceded that no one told him adjudication was withheld on his 1993 reckless driving charge, he first testified that somehow he initially assumed that adjudication had been withheld. The remainder of his testimony, together with Petitioner's Exhibit 1, are construed to prove that, prior to Petitioner's completion and submission of his application for licensure in January of 1997, Petitioner had been informed that adjudication of guilt had not been withheld on his 1993 plea of nolo contendere to the charge of reckless driving, because the charge and conviction had shown up in a computer check when he tried to insure a new car prior to his professional licensure application. While testifying at formal hearing, Petitioner initially stated that he had not fully read the application question concerning any criminal record. Then, he represented that he had not fully comprehended it. Finally, he said he thought the 1993 conviction constituted a traffic offense and was not a misdemeanor. Based on the difficulty of determining the classification of the 1993 conviction, the undersigned concludes that Petitioner did not willfully withhold that information, and need not have disclosed it as the application question was drafted. The question is ambiguous in first requesting information about nolo contendere pleas to felonies or misdemeanors and then adding "violation of the laws" as an afterthought. Petitioner has not had any criminal charges or traffic offenses lodged against his record since 1993. Petitioner has never been the subject of any civil law suit involving fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts. Petitioner is highly respected by his direct supervisor and one of the owners of the buildings he maintains, both of whom testified to Petitioner's veracity, trustworthiness, and good moral character spanning 1988 through the date of formal hearing.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a Final Order permitting Petitioner to sit for the examination. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 6th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Broyles, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Professions Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Michael Kennedy, Esquire Kennedy & Pyle 687 Beeville Road, Suite A South Daytona, Florida 32119 Thomas G. Thomas Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Beard Equipment Company, Inc., sells and maintains heavy equipment in Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner, Robert G. Harrison began employment with the Respondent in Panama City, Florida, in September, 1988. The Petitioner was employed as a janitor. Petitioner's duties included running numerous and varied errands which required driving of a motor vehicle. In April of 1989, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication for what he indicated was a bipolar disorder. However, at the hearing, Petitioner produced no expert testimony to establish that he was mentally handicapped or had bipolar disorder. At that time, Respondent became aware that Petitioner had a medical problem. Later, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication on two more occasions in 1989, and twice in 1992. On each occasion the Respondent accommodated Petitioner by making arrangements to hire temporary employees or readjust other employees' duties so that they could perform Petitioner's duties while he was hospitalized. In early 1992, the Respondent's liability insurance company conducted a random audit of employee driving records. The Respondent was notified by its insurance company that no coverage would be provided for any accident where the employee/driver had a DUI conviction. This random audit prompted Respondent to conduct a complete company- wide internal audit of driving records of all employees. The driving record audit resulted in some transfers for those employees for whom driving was an essential part of their job duties, but whose driving records would prohibit them from being covered under Respondent's liability policy. Employees who could not fulfill the duties of a non-driving position were terminated. Respondent could not afford to allow employees to drive who could not be insured by Respondent's liability carrier. The in-house driving record audit revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction on his record. Respondent had no other non-driving positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. Respondent was therefore forced to discharge the Petitioner since he could no longer fulfill the duties of his employment. Petitioner was discharged in November of 1992. When Petitioner was terminated, Petitioner was advised by Mark Veal, his supervisor, that the driving record audit had revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction, and because he would not be covered under the company insurance policy, they had no alternative but to discharge him. Within a day or so, Petitioner's wife called and requested his discharge letter in writing. Veal prepared the letter, indicating that due to Petitioner's medical history, his operating a motor vehicle would be too much of a liability. Although the real reason for Petitioner's discharge and the reason given him at the time was the DUI conviction, Veal tried to write the discharge letter in such a way as to minimize any embarrassment for the Petitioner due to his DUI conviction. Therefore, the termination letter does not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a mental handicap. In fact, there was no substantial evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on a mental handicap. The evidence clearly showed Respondent was terminated for his driving record and his lack of qualifications to fill any other non-driving position. Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that his position was filled by a person not in a protected class or that Respondent is an employer employing more than 15 employees. Given these facts, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd 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 22nd day of December, 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner forfeits his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan.
Findings Of Fact In 2003, Petitioner started his employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("MDCPS" or "District") as a part-time substitute teacher. Since his initial employment with MDCPS, Petitioner has held positions that were part-time and full-time, as well as held hourly teacher positions, teacher positions, a Community School Act Leader III position, and assistant basketball coach positions. Petitioner took a leave of absence from MDCPS from August 23, 2010, to August 15, 2012. While on leave of absence the first year, Petitioner worked at Mater Academy Charter School as a middle school math teacher from September 2010 to August 2011. During the 2010-2011 school year, Cuenca worked for his private tutoring company, Professional Tutors Academy. Cuenca also was a part-time assistant basketball coach at Hialeah Gardens Senior High School from October 2011 through March 2012. From August 2012 through September 2012, MDCPS assigned Petitioner to Hammocks Middle School full-time, while he took and exhausted all of his sick and personal leave. From October 2012 to February 2013, Petitioner worked part-time as an assistant basketball coach for the varsity team at Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Petitioner's employment made him eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") Investment Plan. In 2014, Petitioner was arrested and charged with felonies, which included charges of "lewd and lascivious molestation on a child 12-16 years/attempt or lewd & lascivious on child over 16 by defendant over 18". Laura Adams ("Adams"), chief of Sexual Battery and Child Abuse Unit for Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office was assigned to prosecute Petitioner who ended up with four cases. Adams charged each case by information based on her victims, four former male basketball players, that each claimed Petitioner coached and sexually harassed and/or assaulted them. On October 4, 2016, Adams negotiated a plea agreement with Petitioner and his two attorneys for all four cases. Adams and Petitioner reached a compromise to resolve the charges that Petitioner had inappropriate contact with the four students. The agreement included that the state would dismiss two of the four cases and Petitioner would plea to two felony battery charges, one felony battery for victim D.F. and one felony battery for victim O.Q.1/ At Petitioner's plea hearing before Judge Milton Hirsch, Adams consolidated all of Petitioner's four cases into a single case with four counts on one charging document. During the hearing, Adams orally reduced count 2 and count 4 of the lewd and lascivious molestation on a child 12-16 years/attempt charges each to a felony battery and dismissed count 1 and count 3. Adams also wrote the negotiated plea terms on the information and agreed to supplement the file for the clerk later. The initialed handwritten information provided: [1]. . . .amended to felony battery 784.03 Nolle pros LA 10/4/16 Lewd + Lascivious Mol on Child < 16 but older than 12 F2 (14-25627) vic. D.F. Felony Battery 784.03 LA Lewd + Lascivious Conduct On Child < 16 by Adult F2 (vic D.N.)(F14-25629) Nolle pros 10/4/16 LA Lewd + Lascivious Molest. On child < 16 by older Then 12 (vic. O.Q>) (F16-14811) Felony Battery 784.03 LA 10/4/16 Petitioner pled to the negotiated settlement at the plea hearing. Judge Hirsch placed Petitioner under oath and went over the plea agreement with Petitioner in detail including informing Cuenca that: [Y]our attorney has worked out a plea for your benefit pursuant to which cases F14- 25627 and F16-14-14811 have been joined by the office of the state attorney in a single charging document now charging two counts of felony battery. The judge also ordered Petitioner not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, not to reside with minors, nor teach or coach minors. Petitioner accepted the negotiated plea to two felony battery charges and informed the judge that he understood the terms and conditions.2/ Neither the Petitioner nor his attorneys objected when Adams waived the defects in the charging document3/ relating to the two felony battery charges. After Petitioner's plea hearing, Judge Hirsch issued a written Order dated October 4, 2016, finding Petitioner guilty of two felony battery charges,4/ which were outlined in the Order as: COUNT CRIME DEGREE 2 BATTERY/FELONY 3/F 4 BATTERY/FELONY 3/F On October 11, 2016, Adams filed a typewritten amended information in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court docket to supplement the record as she had been instructed to do by the clerk during Petitioner's plea hearing on October 4, 2016. The amended information lists count 2 was reduced to BATTERY/FELONY 784.041 Fel 3D and that count 4 was reduced to BATTERY/FELONY 784.041 Fel 3D. In the information, Adams provided the time period for victim D.F.’s allegations as: "And the aforesaid Assistant State Attorney, under oath, further information makes Javier Alejandra Cuenca, on or between August 01, 2012 and December 31, 2012. " To date no post-conviction pleadings have been filed to vacate the plea. D.F. was a student and varsity basketball player at Hialeah Gardens High School during the 2012-2013 school year. Petitioner was the varsity assistant basketball coach and coached D.F. at Hialeah Gardens High School during the 2012- 2013 school year. Petitioner received wages in August, October, and December of 2012, but not in November 2012. Petitioner also earned credible service from August 2012 through December 2012 because he was employed with MDCPS. During Petitioner's employment, he utilized sick and personal leave from August 2012 to September 2012. Subsequently, basketball season started on October 10, 2012, and ended February 2013. Petitioner worked as a part-time employee coaching D.F.'s varsity basketball team during the basketball season, even though Petitioner did not receive any wages in November 2012. Petitioner was paid a lump sum in the amount of $1,473.00 in March 2013 for his services of coaching the varsity team D.F. played on during the 2012-2013 basketball season. Even though Petitioner was a part-time assistant basketball coach for the varsity basketball team, Petitioner earned credible service for all the months he coached, October 2012 through February 2013. Petitioner is the same Javier Cuenca that is the Defendant in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, case F14025627. FRS credible service is calculated based on an employee's position and the days worked, not whether the employee is paid wages. Employees can earn service credit even if not receiving wages during a particular month because the employee is employed that month. In October 2014, Petitioner withdrew all of his investment plan funds from his account and he has never reported that he was overpaid or contested the amount received. Mini Watson ("Watson"), director of Compliance over Investment Plans for the SBA, reviewed Petitioner's payroll reports and credible service report to ensure that he received the service credit to which he was entitled. Watson determined that Petitioner's coaching stipend was a salary after evaluating how MDCPS utilized its discretion as an agency and determined that Petitioner's part-time coaching position qualified for FRS. Watson also concluded MDCPS properly reported credible service for Petitioner from August 2012 through December 2012. After the review, SBA concluded that Petitioner's rights and benefits should be "forfeited as a result of [his] plea of nolo contendere in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, for acts committed while employed with the Miami-Dade County School Board" and informed Petitioner by letter dated February 7, 2017. Petitioner is protesting Respondent's notice of forfeiture letter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, it is determined that the competent evidence at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was an employee of MDCPS from August 2012 to December 2012 because he received credible service during that period. Specifically, the record supports that Petitioner was an employee when he was utilizing his sick and personal leave during August 2012 and September 2012 or he would not have been able to take the leave.5/ Watson's nearly 30 years of experience verifying agencies' compliance in reporting FRS members for determination of service credit entitlement allowed her to credibly assess that MDCPS properly categorized Petitioner's part-time assistant coach position as a FRS-eligible or credible service position from October 2012 to December 2012. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented to demonstrate Petitioner's lump sum salary paid in March 2013 was a bonus as asserted by Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent has proven that Petitioner occupied an FRS-eligible position during the time period that Petitioner’s information alleged his conduct took place for the underlying felony conviction. The undersigned further finds the compelling evidence as a whole demonstrates that Petitioner was found guilty of two felony battery charges, and count 2 related to the victim, student D.F. Specifically, the handwritten information, plea colloquy, Order, and amended information substantiate Petitioner pled to two counts of felony battery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a order finding that Petitioner pled to two felony counts, which are not specified offenses under section 112.3173(2)(e)6. and do not require forfeiture of his FRS rights and benefits pursuant to section 112.3173(3). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2018.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission was the state agency responsible for the training and certification or law enforcement and corrections officers in Florida. Respondent was certified as a Corrections Officer under certificate No. 48891 on August 8, 1991. On June 29, 1994, Respondent was employed as a Corrections Officer I at the Hillsborough Corrections Institute in Tampa and had been so employed for approximately three and a half years. On that day, officer Ricardo Sementilli, a policeman with the Tampa Police Department's narcotics bureau, with approximately six and a half years experience in law enforcement, was targeting a house in Carver City, a Tampa housing area, for suspected unlawful narcotics activity. In the course of his investigation, Officer Sementilli was using the services of a confidential informant, Penny DuFour. Ms. DuFour, herself a former drug user, had been working as an informant for the police in general and for Officer Sementilli in particular for almost two years. On this evening, he proposed to have Ms. DuFour make a controlled purchase of illegal drugs at this particular residence. As preparation for the controlled buy, Ms. DuFour was searched by Officer Keene, also of the Tampa Police Department, to insure that she did not have any narcotics or other contraband in her possession. None was found during this search which is a normal procedure of the Tampa Police Department as a part of a controlled purchase by a confidential informant. Officer Keene was assigned to the Police Department's Tactical Division in narcotics enforcement and had worked in that division for approximately five years. She was working with Sementilli on this operation because he was well known and she was unknown in the geographic area in which the buy was to be made. Pursuant to the officers' plan, Officer Sementilli drove Ms. DuFour and Officer Keene to the intersection of Laurel and Manhattan Streets in Carver City. At this point, Keene, who had binoculars with her, hid out of sight behind a wall at Jefferson High School in a position where she could see Ms. DuFour. When Keene was in place, DuFour was sent out from the police vehicle to approach the residence in question. Keene was able to keep DuFour in sight the entire time using the binoculars. As DuFour approached the residence in question, a red compact car, occupied by Mr. Sampson and the Respondent, drove up. Both DuFour and Keene indicated Mr. Sampson was in the passenger seat and Respondent, who was dressed in a law enforcement uniform, was driving. DuFour went up to the vehicle and leaned in the passenger window. She asked Mr. Sampson if he was "straight." By this she meant to ask if he had any narcotics on his possession. In response, Sampson said he did, reached under the passenger seat of the car, and pulled out a plastic baggie in which were several pieces of what appeared to be cocaine. He placed the baggie in his lap and from it extracted a small piece of the substance which he gave to DuFour in exchange for $20.00 in U.S. currency which DuFour had been given by Officer Sementilli. All during this time, the baggie was in plain view on Sampson's lap and Respondent could see what was happening. She was either looking at Sampson or looking out the window, and Ms. DuFour was of the opinion that Respondent was fully aware of what was going on though she did not say anything. It is so found. After she received the substance from Sampson and paid him for it, DuFour left the vehicle and returned to where Officer Keene was located without either stopping or speaking with anyone on the way. When she got to Keene, she handed over the substance she had received from Sampson and was searched to insure she had not hidden any additional contraband on her person. She had not. Sementilli performed a field test of the substance at the scene. The test indicated the substance DuFour had received from Sampson in the presence of the Respondent was cocaine. This tentative identification was subsequently confirmed by a laboratory analysis conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. No issue was raised as to chain of custody of the sample in question or as to its identification as cocaine. At the time the sale took place from Sampson to DuFour, the officers obtained the license tag number on the vehicle being driven by Respondent and from which Sampson made the sale. A subsequent check with the Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that the vehicle was owned by Louis Sales, Respondent's father. Approximately one month after the sale described above, the car was discovered at the home belonging to Mr. Sampson's mother. As the officers were attempting to impound the vehicle, Respondent approached them. Keene at that time identified Respondent as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the sale in issue here and placed her under arrest. However, criminal charges were not preferred against her. At hearing, Respondent indicated that on the day of the alleged sale, she had been driven to work in her father's car by her boyfriend, Mr. Sampson, who was without his own vehicle at the time. While at work, she was interrogated by facility investigators relative to an allegation that she was introducing contraband into the corrections facility. Because this upset her, she asked for and was give permission to leave work early, approximately 5:30 PM. She then contacted Mr. Sampson who picked her up in her vehicle at approximately 7:00 PM that evening. When Sampson and Respondent left the corrections facility, they drove to Carver City because Sampson said he had to run an errand in the area. At that time Carver City, located some 45 minutes from Plant City, where Respondent lived, was known as an area of high drug activity. It was not uncommon for many drug dealers to be operating on the streets of the community. Respondent knew that Mr. Sampson was a drug dealer. He would sometime sell drugs openly in front of her. She had been present on several other occasions when DuFour had purchased cocaine from Mr. Sampson. At the time she met Mr. Sampson, in December, 1993, notwithstanding she denied it, Respondent knew he had just recently been released from prison because he told her so. He had been convicted of escape and grand theft. Nonetheless, they developed a relationship during the course of which she admittedly began to suspect he was dealing drugs. She did not ask him if this was so, however, even though she knew that her knowing association with a drug dealer could place her certification in jeopardy. When she became convinced that Sampson was dealing drugs, Respondent still did not terminate the relationship, however, claiming she was afraid to do so. When she was arrested as a result of the instant sale, however, she finally broke off the relationship. As a result of the controlled buy in issue, Mr. Sampson was convicted of sale of cocaine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Sydell T. Sales, be found guilty of demonstrating less than good moral character, and that her certification as a corrections officer be placed on probation for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, 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 29th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North MacDill Avenue Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 A. Leon Lowry, II Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
