The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated January 31, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Dieguez is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Sweetwater Police Department. As such, he holds a position of high trust. Dieguez abused that trust by failing to maintain good moral character. Specifically, he sexually abused a minor over a period of years, and lied under oath to law enforcement officers investigating the abuse. For almost a decade, Dieguez was in a relationship of trust with a young girl (the victim). Dieguez abused that trust by taking advantage of his access to the victim to sexually violate her on repeated occasions, beginning when she was well below the age of consent. Dieguez maintained the victim's silence by virtue of his position of authority over her. More specifically, at all times material to this case, Dieguez is the primary breadwinner for the victim, the victim's mother, and the victim's two siblings. Dieguez alternated acts of kindness and generosity toward the victim with threats and intimidation. Dieguez also left a paper trail which, for reasons set forth below, provided clear and convincing evidence of his guilty knowledge of his improper conduct toward the victim. Dieguez created at least three documents which he referred to as "contracts" between himself and the victim. The contracts first came to light on February 15, 2001, when the victim's mother accompanied her daughter to the Metro-Dade Police Department to lodge an abuse complaint against Dieguez. At that time, the victim told investigators, "He wrote me contracts, like stating something in return, like touching my vagina, having sexual intercourse, or me to ejaculate him." In the context of Dieguez' relationship with the victim and, more significantly, in considering the "contracts" as a whole, it is clear that the contracts were part of an ongoing scheme by Dieguez to induce the victim to continue to submit to him sexually, and to maintain silence about the abuse. Within days of filing the complaint, the victim's mother had a change of heart. Henceforth, and through the date of the hearing, she impeded the investigation by actively discouraging her daughter from cooperating with investigators. Dieguez was nevertheless questioned under oath about the abuse allegations by duly-authorized investigating officers. He denied any improper conduct towards the victim. In May 2001, three documents matching the victim's description of the "contracts" were found in the trunk of Sweetwater police vehicle number 953. Specifically, the documents were located underneath a lining attached to the spare tire compartment. Vehicle number 953 had previously been assigned to Dieguez. The handwriting on the documents was matched to Dieguez. The "contracts," which were admitted into evidence without objection, speak loudly regarding the improper nature of Dieguez' relationship to the victim. At the time of the final hearing, the victim, then 19, testified in support of Dieguez, claiming that she had lied to investigators, and to friends, about having been abused by him. By the time of the hearing, the victim had, as one of the investigating officers put it, "flipped twice" as to whether she had in fact been abused by Dieguez. The victim was accompanied to the hearing by an attorney, who entered an appearance on her behalf but made no motions. The victim's mother was also present with Respondent. The trier-of-fact carefully observed the young woman's demeanor under oath and has no hesitation in saying that her purported denial of abuse served instead to corroborate the "contracts" in which Dieguez documents the true and improper nature of his conduct toward the victim. The victim was plainly in distress as she gave her testimony. She claimed, unpersuasively, not to remember details of her allegations, nor of the investigation itself. She claimed not to have spoken with her mother about her allegations against Dieguez at any time after February 15, 2001. In fact, she denied speaking to anybody about the allegations, including the attorney who was present on her behalf. Under all the circumstances, the "contacts" in Dieguez' handwriting affirmatively and compellingly demonstrate the unreliability of the victim’s in court denial of abuse. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that officers who lack good moral character may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. Making a false statement under oath is an independent ground upon which a law enforcement officer's license may be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dieguez's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teri Guttman Valdez, Esquire 1550 Madruga Avenue, Suite 323 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 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
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Roberto Mera (Mera), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Mera. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Mera had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Mera and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Mera filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Mera denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Mera on April 16, 1987, at which time he divulged that he had used marijuana one time in 1977, that he had used cocaine one time in 1982, and that he had purchased a stolen VCR for $100 in 1982. While the used VCR he purchased was apparently stolen property, Mera did not know such fact when he purchased it, and turned it over to the police when they advised him it was stolen property. Other than heretofore noted, Mera has never used marijuana or cocaine. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Mera's background, that Mera possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidents. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Mera, born August 20, 1963, used marijuana one time 12 years ago when he was 14-15 years of age, and cocaine one time 7 years ago when he was 19 years of age. At no time did he knowingly purchase stolen property. Such isolated and dated usage of marijuana and cocaine can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Mera has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Mera has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Roberto Mera, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. HEARING OFFICER Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Kenneth Hart (Hart), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hart. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hart had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hart and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hart filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hart denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hart on May 22, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Hart used marijuana on approximately three occasions and cocaine on approximately three occasions, that such use was sporadic and infrequent, and that such use occurred more than two years prior to the interview. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hart's background, that Hart possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his infrequent and sporadic use of marijuana over 5 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hart, born February 15, 1962, used marijuana and cocaine approximately three times over 5 years ago when he was 21-22 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Hart has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hart has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Kenneth Hart, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, David Fialko (Fialko), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Fialko. 3/Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Fialko had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of food moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Fialko and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Fialko filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Fialko denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Fialko on December 13, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Fialko's use of cocaine occurred prior to 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and was limited to two or three occasions. His use of marijuana commenced when he was approximately 16 years of age, and continued on an occasional basis until he was 19 years of age. Subsequent to 1982, Fialko has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Fialko's background, that Fialko possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his use of marijuana and cocaine prior to 1983. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. In 1982, at age 19, Fialko attended and graduated from the Broward Fire Academy with the aspiration of becoming a fireman; however, due to the want of available positions and the number of applicants, he was unable to secure employment. In January 1983, recognizing that the likelihood of securing employment as a fireman was scant, Fialko entered Sheridan Vocational School to pursue a career as a medical laboratory technician. Following his graduation from Sheridan in early 1984, and his certification as a medical laboratory technician, Fialko was employed by Quality Laboratory. He remained in the employ of Quality Laboratory for over three years, until employed by the County as a correctional officer, and was recognized as an excellent employee. To date, Fialko has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. While Fialko, born December 10, 1983, used cocaine two or three times when he was 19 years of age and used marijuana occasionally between age 16 and 19, such use occurred approximately 7 years ago and was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ More indicative of Fialko's moral character is his continuous employment since age 16, his drive to secure an education and training at his own expense, and his excellent performance in all his endeavors. Overall, Fialko has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, David Fialko, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked, or otherwise disciplined, for failure to maintain qualifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Dade County public schools and worked as a guard in the school system's administration building for several years. As a public school employee, he was subjected to random drug testing. None of those tests indicated the presence of drugs in Respondent's system. Over time, persons employed as police officers by the school system's Special Investigative Unit became impressed with Respondent's character and job performance and approached him regarding becoming certified as a police officer and working with the Special Investigative Unit of the Dade County public schools. Since Respondent had always wanted to be a police officer, he attended the police academy under the sponsorship of the Dade County school system. After graduation from the police academy, Respondent was certified by Petitioner on January 4, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 03-87-002-04. Thereafter, he was employed as a police officer with the Dade County public schools' Special Investigative Unit. In mid-April, 1988, Respondent and his then-fiancee went down to the Florida Keys with, and at the invitation of, another couple to spend the weekend in a time-share condominium, from Friday through Sunday. After lunch on Saturday, Respondent and the other couple began drinking beer. They drank beer until the time that the four vacationers went to dinner. At dinner Respondent consumed several mixed drinks. After dinner they returned to the condominium where Respondent consumed more beer. By this time Respondent was drunk. He fell asleep on the couch while his fiancee and the other couple continued talking and listening to music. At some point Respondent began waking up. Respondent's male "friend" reached into his own wallet, took out what appeared to be a cigarette, lit it, and placed it in Respondent's hand. When Respondent, who smokes cigarettes, began smoking the item placed in his hand, he began choking. When Respondent's fiancee demanded to know what was occurring, the "friend" replied that he was only playing a joke on Respondent and took the "cigarette" back from the Respondent. Respondent lay back down on the couch and again fell asleep. Due to the amount of alcohol he had consumed on Saturday, Respondent remembers going back to the time-share condominium after dinner but has no recollection of anything that happened thereafter. On the following day, the vacationers returned to Miami. No one told Respondent about the joke his "friend" had played on him. On Monday Respondent was advised that his annual employment physical, including drug screening, would take place on Tuesday. Respondent made no attempt to avoid that physical examination, but rather appeared for his physical as scheduled. On Tuesday, April 19, 1988, Respondent underwent his annual employment physical at Mt. Sinai Hospital. He was administered a drug test as part of that routine annual physical mandated by his employer. The employer had no reasonable suspension to drug test the Respondent. The subsequent gas chromatography, mass spectrometry analysis performed on Respondent's urine sample produced a reading of 27 nanograms of THC metabolites, i.e., his urine test was positive for the metabolite associated with the drug marijuana or cannabinoids. When Respondent was advised by his supervisor that his test was positive for marijuana, Respondent was shocked. He denied ever having smoked marijuana and also denied being around anyone who was smoking marijuana. Respondent took the position that his sample must have been contaminated. When advised by his supervisors that he could have the sample re- tested, Respondent declined believing that if the sample was contaminated, the results of any re-testing would be the same. Respondent's supervisors were also shocked that Respondent's test proved positive. They held him in the highest regard and testified at the final hearing that Respondent is an excellent police officer, that he is conscientious and reliable, and that he possesses honesty and integrity. One of his supervisors testified that he would let Respondent "watch my back" without hesitation in any situation -- the highest tribute a police officer can give to another police officer. In spite of his supervisors' high opinion of Respondent, Respondent was fired from his employment with the school system's police unit as a result of the positive urine test results because that was that department's policy. Respondent consistently maintained that he had never used marijuana. Believing his urine sample to have been contaminated, he hired an attorney to represent him in proving that the test results were erroneous. Respondent consistently maintained that he did not use drugs. He maintained that he could not understand why his test was positive. At some point in an informal discussion with one of his supervisors, Respondent maintained that he did not use drugs and told that supervisor the only thing unusual that had happened prior to the drug test was that he had spent the weekend in the Keys and perhaps he had been some how exposed to marijuana there. Some time after Respondent's termination from the school system, Petitioner filed formal charges to revoke his certification as a police officer. Some where around that time, his then-fiancee finally told Respondent what had happened in the Keys the night that Respondent was drunk. She told him she had been afraid to tell him about it since she had not told him earlier. She thought that if she had told him before he was fired, then he might have been able to avoid being fired. Since she had not told him then, she had not told him subsequently since she thought he would consider it her fault that he had been fired and would refuse to marry her. She finally told him because of the pain he was suffering not knowing and because of the need for honesty in their relationship. Although Respondent had no recollection of the incident described to him by her, he believed her when she told him that it had happened. Respondent then accepted responsibility for having smoked marijuana on that one occasion when he was drunk. Respondent did not knowingly and voluntarily possess marijuana and did not knowingly and voluntarily introduce that substance into his body during that weekend in the Keys. Respondent's consumption of marijuana in the Keys on that weekend was an isolated incident, and Respondent has not possessed or consumed marijuana prior to or subsequent to that incident. Although Respondent exhibited poor judgment in becoming so intoxicated that evening in the Keys, Respondent does possess good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-6484 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8-10, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 11, and 15 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. The first through fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The sixth, seventh, and tenth through thirteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Copies furnished: Mark Richard, Esquire 304 Palermo Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 12, 2000, and filed March 11, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, St. Amand was a certified law enforcement officer employed as a detective by the North Miami Beach Police Department. St. Amand occupied a position of the highest trust as a member of the detective bureau. He abused that trust by engaging in repeated acts of lewd behavior in the workplace. The nature and quantity of the behavior was sufficient to provoke complaints to the Dade County State Attorney's Office which resulted in an investigation concerning sexual harassment and indecent exposure. In the course of that investigation, St. Amand compounded his offenses by lying consistently and repeatedly to investigators. Five witnesses, all of whom were entirely credible, testified in detail regarding incidents they had witnessed in which St.Amand masturbated, or simulated masturbation, at work. One such incident took place in the community patrol office. St. Amand's semen was collected from the carpet in that office. One of his former partners in the family violence unit said it was "second nature" to St. Amand to grope himself, simulate masturbation, and make vulgar comments. He did so in front of male as well as female colleagues. St. Amand falsely denied under oath that any of the incidents his colleagues testified to ever happened. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that law enforcement officers who lack good moral character, or who make false statements under oath, may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. The public has every right to expect that those who serve and protect will do exactly that--not harass and embarrass colleagues and citizens who are conducting business in tax- supported buildings. St. Amand's conduct did substantial damage to his colleagues' morale, and to his department's reputation for professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Amand's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred St. Amand, Jr. 2429 Northwest 184 Terrace Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029 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 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
