Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 48 similar cases
BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DONALD W. DEL BELLO, 92-003116 (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida May 21, 1992 Number: 92-003116 Latest Update: May 21, 1993

The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald W. Del Bello, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 402600, covering the area of music, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is currently employed by the Dade County Public School System to teach music at the elementary school level, and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. In these proceedings, the sole issue for determination was whether, on or about July 23, 1991, at Tropical Park, Dade County, Florida, the respondent exposed his sexual organs in a vulgar or indecent manner. The proof in this case was not, however, sufficiently compelling to satisfactorily resolve the issue raised. To support its case, petitioner offered the testimony of Sergeant James Julian, a police officer with the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department, who testified that on July 23, 1991, while operating undercover at Tropical Park, a public place, in Miami, Dade County, Florida, he observed respondent expose his sexual organs. According to Sergeant Julian, he observed the respondent, dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants, and another man, dressed in running attire (tennis shoes, blue shorts and top), standing approximately 20 yards apart, and that, while watching each other they rubbed their crotches, removed their penises from their pants, and masturbated. According to Sergeant Julian, he was approximately 10 yards from the respondent and approximately 30 yards from the man in running attire when these events occurred, and that upon observing such activity he placed both men under arrest. Juxtaposed with the proof offered on behalf of petitioner, respondent testified that while he was in the park on the day in question, he was not dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants but, rather, was wearing running attire (white running shoes, blue shorts and a white tee shirt), that he observed another male dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants who was masturbating, and that he did not take his penis from his pants, expose himself or masturbate. Respondent's attire on the day in question was reasonably corroborated by two credible witnesses, and his testimony at hearing was consistent with his recitation of what had occurred to his attorney, within an hour of being released from police custody. Here, the proof offered by each of the parties appeared worthy of belief, and it cannot be concluded, based on the record in this case, which version reflects what actually transpired on the day in question. Therefore, considering the fact that the burden of proof in these proceedings rested on petitioner as discussed infra, it must be concluded that the proof fails to support the conclusion that respondent committed the offense as alleged in the administrative complaint.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1993.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 1
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs BARBARA GONZALEZ, 00-002886PL (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Jul. 13, 2000 Number: 00-002886PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 2
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF OPTICIANRY vs MADISON M. ZIEGLER, 01-004258PL (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Pensacola, Florida Oct. 31, 2001 Number: 01-004258PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 3
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION vs KENNETH MANDERVILLE, 03-000897PL (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Palatka, Florida Mar. 13, 2003 Number: 03-000897PL Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2003

The Issue Whether the actions charged in the Administrative Complaint in the case of Respondent Kenneth Manderville, (Mr. Manderville), demonstrate that he does not have the moral character to qualify as a correctional and law enforcement officer as provided in Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.

Findings Of Fact Mr. Manderville holds correctional and law enforcement certificates issued by the Commission pursuant to the power vested in the Commission by Section 943.12(3). Mr. Manderville was employed as a deputy with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office for eight years, achieving the rank of sergeant. He was terminated for cause on October 11, 2000. Pursuant to Section 943.12(3), the Commission is empowered to certify and to revoke the certification of officers. Betty Prevatt (Mrs. Prevatt) is a resident of Palatka, Florida. On or about June 25, 2000, Mrs. Prevatt and her husband were involved in a domestic dispute. During the course of this dispute, her husband reached for his shotgun. As a result, Mrs. Prevatt fled her residence and ran down the adjacent highway. A helpful citizen rescued her by providing her with an automobile ride to the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Later in the evening of June 25, 2000, at the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Mrs. Prevatt came into contact with Sergeant Manderville, during the course of filing a domestic violence complaint with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. Subsequently, Sergeant Manderville caused the arrest and incarceration of Mr. Prevatt. Thereafter, Sergeant Manderville gave Mrs. Prevatt a ride in his patrol car to her home. While at the Prevatt home, Mrs. Prevatt told Sergeant Manderville that she did not wish to spend the night in her home so he told her to return to the Sheriff's Department in her automobile. Mrs. Prevatt came to the Sheriff's Department, as instructed by Mr. Manderville, around 11:30 P.M. Mr. Manderville told her to follow him in her car. He led her to a house owned by Mr. Manderville's parents. They entered the house. Mr. Manderville was in uniform and on duty. Subsequently he removed his uniform and engaged in sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt. Thereafter, he telephoned a woman's shelter and Mrs. Prevatt spent the night there. Subsequently Mrs. Prevatt called Mr. Manderville, on more than one occasion during the course of the next few days, and inquired as to the process required to extract her husband from the Putnam County Jail. Eventually Mr. Manderville told her that he would help her win the release of her husband, and ostensibly to facilitate that purpose, instructed her to meet him at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant after sunset. She did as requested and he told her to return to his parents' house. She complied with his direction. Upon entering his parents' house, he insisted on having sexual intercourse again. She submitted. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Afterwards, she returned to the shelter in which she was then residing, which was located in St. Augustine. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Manderville asked Mrs. Prevatt to meet him at the Sheriff's Department, allegedly for the purpose of finishing paperwork regarding Mr. Prevatt. In response, she met him as requested. Thereafter, he took her to an interview room, had sexual intercourse with her, withdrew, and ejaculated on the carpet. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Mrs. Prevatt's husband was released from jail a few days after his arrest but Mrs. Prevatt continued to live in the shelter. After a period of about two months, she went to the sheriff's office to retrieve her husband's shotgun. During a conversation at the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Manderville asked her to meet him after dark at the post office in Palatka. She did as asked. Mr. Manderville asked her to get in his patrol car and he then took her to his house in Mannville. After arriving at Mr. Manderville's house in Mannville, he required her to disrobe, had intercourse with her twice, and took pictures of her bent over the hood of his patrol car, while nude. All of this occurred while he was on duty and, except during the sexual activity, he was attired in his uniform. This was the last time that they had sexual contact. Almost three months later, Mrs. Prevatt again established a relationship with her husband. Mr. Prevatt began to inquire about Mrs. Prevatt's relationship with Mr. Manderville and she revealed what had occurred. On September 28, 2000, she gave a detailed report of the matter to Lieutenant Roger W. Sassaman and Detective Walter Perkins of the internal affairs section of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. On October 11, 2000, Mr. Manderville was discharged from his employment with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Manderville asserted that Mrs. Prevatt's statements with regard to sexual activity were fabrications. He claimed that Mrs. Prevatt was infatuated with him. He asserted that she called him on many occasions in furtherance of what she wanted to be a continuing romantic relationship but that he had resisted her. Mrs. Prevatt is a woman whose life has been beset with problems. At the time of the hearing she had endured an abusive marital situation for eighteen years. She has experienced problems maintaining steady employment and she has abused prescription drugs. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Mrs. Prevatt's version of the story was, in pertinent parts, true, and that Mr. Manderville's version lacks credibility. In arriving at that conclusion, the following matters were considered: Mrs. Prevatt was able to describe with particularity the interior of Mr. Manderville's parents' house and the interior of Mr. Manderville's residence. If she had not been taken to these places, she would not have been able to glean these details. Moreover, Mrs. Debbie Manderville, who married Mr. Manderville in 1996, in her attempt to discredit Mrs. Prevatt's knowledge of the interior of the two houses, succeeded only in demonstrating that Mrs. Prevatt did have an accurate recollection of the interiors. Mrs. Prevatt was aware that Mr. Manderville was married to a nurse because she heard him call her at the local hospital from Mrs. Manderville's home. This call was undoubtedly made for the purpose of insuring that Mrs. Manderville would not intrude while he was present there with Mrs. Prevatt. Mrs. Prevatt knew that Mr. Manderville's entire body, except for the pubic area, was cleanly shaved, at times pertinent. Mr. Manderville confirmed this in his testimony. Had she not seen him in the nude, she would not have been aware of this. Mrs. Prevatt was able to point out a spot on the interview room carpet where she claimed semen residue would be found. Mr. Manderville, when questioned about this at the hearing, did not deny that semen residue was found at that exact spot she identified. He stated, however, that it was produced not from illicit activity with Mrs. Prevatt, but through self- abuse. His version regarding the presence of the semen was unbelievable. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances elicited at the hearing, it is found by clear and convincing evidence that on four occasions Mr. Manderville had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt while he was on duty, when she was emotionally distraught, and under circumstances where he used his power as a law enforcement officer to take advantage of her in a stressful situation.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a final order be issued revoking the certification of Mr. Manderville as a law enforcement and correctional officer. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 19th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Florida Laws (7) 119.07120.57943.12943.13943.133943.139943.1395
# 4
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs GUY ROSS, 00-003883PL (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Sep. 19, 2000 Number: 00-003883PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 5
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs MARY JEAN GILBERT, 01-002985PL (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Jul. 24, 2001 Number: 01-002985PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 6
BOARD OF NURSING vs. LEAMON TUNETALE COX, 83-001271 (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-001271 Latest Update: Nov. 18, 1983

Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born February 22, 1924. He graduated from high school in 1942 and attended Rhode Island College School of Nursing from 1970 until graduation in 1974. At the time of his application for licensure by endorsement in Florida in 1976, Cox was registered in Rhode Island and Connecticut. On his application he listed Lois Cox as his wife. At the hearing Respondent testified he and Lois Cox were never married. Exhibit 2 states they had lived together for about seven years when, in late November of 1981, Lois Cox moved to a different address in Lauderhill, Florida. On January 6, 1982, Respondent came to the residence of Lois Cox, asked to speak to her outside in the vicinity of his car, and after some discussion Respondent took a pistol from his car and shot Lois Cox several times in the head and shoulder. On September 24, 1982, Respondent was found guilty of attempted murder II (lesser) and possession of a firearm while engaged in a felony offense. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 25 years (Exhibit 3). Respondent worked through PRN, Inc., for two years immediately preceding his arrest, in various hospitals in Broward County. No complaints were ever received regarding Respondent's professional performance, and evaluations by supervisory personnel were good (Exhibit 4). No evidence was presented that Respondent had ever been convicted of any other crime. Petitioner presented one witness, Mrs. Geraldine Johnson, who qualified as an expert, to opine that the offenses of which Respondent had been found guilty directly affects the ability to practice nursing. Her rationale for this opinion is that a nurse is supposed to help, not hurt, a patient; and often a nurse is placed in a position where the nurse must defend against the patient and in so doing the nurse must not react in a violent manner. Ergo, one who has been found guilty of attempted murder has demonstrated such violent tendencies that he no longer has the ability to practice nursing. This expert witness is the Supervisor of Investigative Services, Region II of the Department of Professional Regulation, and she, and the investigators working under her supervision, investigate complaints against nurses and submit reports from which the bases for the probable cause determinations are made by the probable cause panel of the Board of Nursing. This opinion is rejected as beyond the expertise of the witness.

Florida Laws (4) 112.011120.57464.018466.018
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs TAMESA GILMORE, C.N.A, 17-002561PL (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Sarasota, Florida May 01, 2017 Number: 17-002561PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 8
BOARD OF NURSING vs. MARIANNE E. ABBOTT, 85-004171 (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-004171 Latest Update: Apr. 11, 1986

Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1553112. Respondent's nursing license is current through March 31, 1987. In April 1984, Respondent applied for a license to practice nursing in the State of Florida. On this application she indicated she had never been arrested for any offense other than a traffic violation. The aforesaid application was signed by Respondent under oath. However, on or about 7 September, 1974, Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of abduction of a female. Respondent was convicted of the aforesaid crime and sentenced to not less than three (3) nor more than ten (10) years in a state prison with execution of sentence suspended and Respondent placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. Marianne Gauthier and Respondent are one and the same person. Respondent was tried in a county court in West Virginia and never actually served any prison time. Upon successful completion of her probation period, Respondent was released from all provisions of probation. Subsequent to her arrest and conviction in 1974 Respondent completed a four year college curriculum to qualify as a registered nurse and has had no further involvement with any law enforcement authority. RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a reprimand for failure to accurately complete her license application and be placed on probation for a period of 6 months. Entered this 11th day of April, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marianne E. Abbott 1824 Cadillac Circle Tampa, Florida 33619

Florida Laws (3) 455.227464.016464.018
# 9
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs APRIL D. WHEELER, L.P.N., 09-004646PL (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Aug. 25, 2009 Number: 09-004646PL Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2024
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer