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 Petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against the criminal law, from vagrancy on December 31, 1958, to gambling on May 3, 1976. He has been convicted in the courts of three states on various charges, including assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, carrying a concealed weapon, destroying city property, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, non-support, possession of dangerous drugs and possession of marijuana. In addition, he was arrested for and charged with assignation and vagrancy; and posted bonds which were forfeited. According to a personal questionnaire petitioner filled out on March 16, 1978, petitioner is single; he has been employed at the same place since 1976; and he has lived at the same address since 1974.
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, Leonard McMullen (McMullen), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1985, 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 McMullen. 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 McMullen 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 7, 1988, the Commission notified McMullen 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 cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, McMullen filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, McMullen 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 preemployment 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 McMullen on March 8, 1985, at which time he admitted limited use of marijuana some 9 years previously. Here, the proof demonstrates that McMullen's use of marijuana was indeed limited, probably numbering little more than twice, and that his use occurred during high school, when he was 17 or 18 years of age. Since that time, McMullen has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of McMullen's background, that McMullen possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana over 13 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, McMullen, born January 7, 1958, used marijuana approximately two times, the last time being over 13 years ago when he was 17 or 18 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/ Following his graduation from high school, McMullen joined the U.S. Army, where he served honorably for three years as a military policeman. He enjoyed a secret security clearance, and his periodic drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the service, McMullen was employed for a few months by Gulf Life Insurance Company, and then by Florida Power & Light Company until he was employed by the County. To date, McMullen has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years, and was recently promoted to the rank of corporal. 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, McMullen 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, Leonard McMullen, 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 Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 13, 1987, and was issued certificate number 19-86-502- 05. Respondent is employed as a correctional officer by Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and has been so employed since June, 1986. Respondent's current assignment is at the Metro-Dade County Women's Detention Center, Miami, Florida, where she works in different correctional capacities. Respondent was born on March 18, 1956, and attended junior and senior high school in Miami, Florida. She then attended Miami-Dade Junior College on a two-year scholarship, earning an A.A. degree in criminology. She then attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, earning a Bachelor's degree in criminology. During high school Respondent lost the tips of three fingers on her right hand, as a result of an accident in the factory where she worked. Respondent worked for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, from 1979-1986. At first, she worked in the Clerk's Office itself. She was subsequently assigned to work as a courtroom clerk in the misdemeanor division, and later moved up to working as a courtroom clerk in the felony division. Hector A. Rocafort, a polygraph examiner with the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, administered a polygraph pre- test to Respondent on November 5, 1985. The pre-test involves a discussion/interview between Rocafort and the person being examined prior to the time that the polygraph examination itself is administered. Rocafort made notes of his interpretation of the discussion between Respondent and him. Those notes were never shown to Respondent. Respondent was never advised that any statements made by her to Rocafort could or would be used against her in an administrative forum. The statements subsequently attributed to Respondent, as reported by Rocafort, are not verbatim statements; rather, Rocafort paraphrased statements made by Respondent to him. The statements allegedly made by Respondent were not sworn to by Respondent, and the written interpretation subsequently made a part of her personnel file by Rocafort were not sworn to by him. During the pre-test, Respondent was encouraged to disclose any conduct that was even questionable in her mind, and Rocafort explained legal ramifications to her. For example, he explained that taking items home from work, shoplifting, and petit theft were all the same thing. When a specific dimension of the pre-test format called for time periods or the number of times that conduct was engaged in, Respondent was asked to indicate a time frame or number with which she would feel comfortable. Rocafort explained that the methodology used is to have the examinee make pre-test disclosures in their worst light so that when the actual polygraph examination is administered, he can ask the question "Other than what we have already discussed, have you ever . . . ." That way, the examinee does not have to worry about exact numbers or dates or questionable incidents during the examination and can comfortably answer the polygraph examination questions so as to produce accurate readings. Accordingly, the number of occasions indicated or the time periods indicated during the pre-test need not be accurate. According to Rocafort, Respondent did very well on the actual polygraph examination. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to being arrested and charged with petit theft in 1977. In 1977 Respondent, while attending Florida State University, was in a Woolco Department Store in Tallahassee with another lady she knew. Respondent's companion took off the pair of old "thongs" which she was wearing and put on a new pair of "thongs" which the store had for sale. The "thongs" had a retail value of $1.99. She left the store without paying for them. A Woolco security guard called Respondent and her companion back to the store. Respondent returned to the store, but her companion did not, having gone elsewhere in the mall. Since Respondent had been with the person who committed the theft, the security guard called the police, and Respondent was charged with petit theft. She was taken to jail and brought before a judge the next morning. When she appeared in court, she had no attorney, was scared, and was alone. The judge explained to her that if she pled guilty, she would be required to serve 24 hours of community service. Since she was afraid of what else could happen to her if she did not plead guilty, she entered a plea of guilty and was required to perform 24 hours of community service. She performed her community service at the Salvation Army's nursery and worked there for more than the 24 hours required, working there during the evenings when she had spare time. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to purchasing stolen goods on four occasions, the last time being 1980 when she allegedly purchased a pair of sneakers for $5.00. Respondent purchased items from street vendors several times throughout her life, a common occurrence or "way of life" in her neighborhood. In approximately 1980, while Respondent was working in a restaurant with her mother a man came into the restaurant selling canvas sneakers. Respondent's sister wanted to purchase a pair, so Respondent gave her the $5.00 she needed to buy a pair of sneakers from the vendor. Currently, similar sneakers can be purchased retail for $5.99. Similarly, Respondent purchased undershirts for her baby son when Respondent was 15 years of age. Respondent never considered the fact that the sneakers or the undershirts might have been stolen until Rocafort suggested to her during the pre-test on November 5, 1985, that items bought from street vendors could be stolen property. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to shoplifting ten times, the last time being five years earlier. Respondent has never shoplifted. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to using marijuana approximately five times, the last time being two years earlier. Respondent took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette at a party while she was in the 9th or 10th grade, at the age of 15 or 16. Respondent involuntarily took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette, at the insistence of a man she was dating in 1982 or 1983. Respondent has no recollection of puffing a marijuana cigarette other than on those two occasions. Respondent took a pre-employment physical examination on April 10, 1986, at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis in which Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Respondent took an annual employment physical on March 14, 1990, at Mount Sinai Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis. Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation considers, in determining whether an applicant's prior use of controlled substances should be a bar to employment, the severity and frequency of the usage and the lapse of time between the usage and the applicant's employment. If the usage is not severe or frequent and one year has passed between the last usage and the employment application date, then the usage is not considered proximate in time and prior use will not be a bar to employment but will simply be considered along with all of the other factors considered as a result of the background investigation of an applicant. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test Respondent allegedly admitted to taking minor office supplies totalling approximately $10.00. Respondent, while working as a courtroom clerk for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, was issued pens, pencils, "Wite out", and manila folders to use at her job. When Respondent "used up" the supplies issued to her or if someone took them off her desk in the courtroom, she would have to submit a written request for a replacement. Accordingly, Respondent often took these supplies home to safeguard them and generally brought them back to the job the next day, but may have forgotten on occassion. The polygraph examination, the pre-test, the physical examination, and a background investigation are required to be conducted by the employing agency prior to certification of a correctional officer by Petitioner. By virtue of the fact that Respondent was certified by Petitioner on February 13, 1987, she was determined at that time by Petitioner to be of good moral character up to that date. All allegations of misconduct made by Petitioner in this cause involve dates prior to the date that Petitioner concluded that Respondent had good moral character. Respondent is considered, by reputation, to be honest beyond reproach, to possess integrity, and to be of good moral character. She is an outstanding employee, and has the respect of her supervisors. As one supervisor testified, "She can work with me any time." Respondent possesses, and has maintained, good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and dismissing the Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 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 31st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11- 15 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a corrections officer in 1972 and was so certified at all times here relevant. Respondent was a season ticket holder to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1983 football games. He attended the game on September 25, 1983, with four friends. Before arriving at the game the group bought a fifth of whiskey. Respondent contends he had only one drink prior to the incident with the police officers but three police officers opined that Respondent was intoxicated. During the second half of the game, with the Bucs woefully behind and some spectators leaving the stadium, Respondent was yelling disparaging remarks about the Bucs and their performance on that day. Occasionally, Respondent was standing on his seat when he yelled the remarks. Respondent was more noisy than others in the section in which his seat was located and drew the attention of Jennifer Frye, a City of Tampa police officer serving as a uniformed off-duty policewoman paid the owners of the stadium to maintain crowd control. Officer Frye motioned for Respondent to come to the platform where she was standing, some four rows above Respondent's seat. Respondent did so, climbing between the people and seats behind him as he responded to Frye's summons. When Respondent reached Frye's position, she smelled alcohol on his breath and he appeared to her to be intoxicated. Respondent was somewhat annoyed in being called up by the policewoman and wanted to know why she had beckoned him from his seat. He was gesturing with his arms and asking what he had done wrong. Officer Lois Morraro, another off-duty member of the Tampa police force, was also working in uniform at the stadium. She observed Respondent respond to Frye's request and saw Respondent arguing. Morraro approached the two and positioned herself behind Respondent. Respondent told Frye he was a season ticket holder and was entitled to be upset when the Bucs were losing. Frye and Morraro decided to evict Respondent from the stadium and when Frye initially grabbed his hand Respondent pulled away. She then told him he was under arrest and grabbed his left arm and hand with a come-along grip. Morraro grabbed Respondent's right arm, twisted it behind his back, and moved the hand up toward the shoulders. They proceeded to propel the struggling Respondent down the steps to a holding area. When they reached the holding area they were joined by Sergeant Peter Ambraz, the off- duty Tampa police officer in charge of the stadium detail. Ambraz took Respondent's right arm while Morraro handcuffed Respondent. During this time Respondent was trying to keep from being handcuffed and in the process his elbow accidentally hit Morraro in the throat while she was standing behind him putting handcuffs on him. After Respondent had been handcuffed and taken to the police station, he revealed that he was a certified corrections officer. Respondent was subsequently tried for disorderly intoxication and fired from his job with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent's correction officer's license is subject to disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Mark T. Lewis, the Respondent, was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 31, 1990. He was issued Correctional Certificate Number 79926. At the time and to the present, Respondent lived with his long-time girlfriend, Melanie Young. On April 23, 1992, the Respondent threw a party, at a friend's house for Ms. Young. The friend's house was located at 220 North Caroline Street. Ms. Young became very inebriated at the party. At some point, she was so drunk she had fallen and bloodied her nose and face. During the night, a physical and verbal altercation occurred between the Respondent and Gerold Scurry. Also, at some point during the party, Respondent had stepped on a piece of glass which was lodged in his foot. Because of the altercation, Respondent left the party on foot but eventually obtained a ride from a friend. He left his car, a black Camero, at the party's location. Ms. Young did not want Respondent to leave. In her foggy, drunken state, she was upset that Respondent had left. After Respondent left the party, the party broke up with everyone leaving the apartment where the party had been held. Ms. Young and Mr. Scurry's sister left the party's location and went to her friend's relatives' home. The relatives and her friend, perhaps mistakenly believing Respondent had caused Ms. Young's bloody nose, agitated Ms. Young into calling the police. At approximately 5:00 a.m. on April 24, 1992, Melanie Young, still quite inebriated and not thinking clearly and still upset with Respondent, called the Daytona Beach Police Department. Ms. Young was so intoxicated she does not clearly remember what she told the police 911 operator when she called. She admits that she could have said anything to the operator in her condition. Officer Anthony Annatone received a dispatch to respond to 220 North Caroline Street in reference to a subject driving a black Camero who was possibly armed and enroute to that location in order to harm another. Ms. Young in her drunken state forgot Mr. Scurry was no longer at the party's location. In fact, no one was at the party's location. As Officer Annatone arrived he observed the apartment door standing open and a black Camero leaving the apartment's parking lot. Respondent had decided to retrieve his car from the parking lot. He was driving to the emergency room at the local hospital to have his foot taken care of. Officer Annatone, followed the Camero and called for back up. When the backup arrived, Officer Annatone activated his lights and pulled the Camero over. Respondent got out of the Camero and walked to the back of the car towards the police car. Officer Annatone asked Respondent if he was armed with a firearm or weapon. Respondent replied no but that the officer could check the car. Respondent was completely cooperative and polite towards the police officers. Daytona Beach Police Department Officer Steve Larson searched the Camero. He recovered from underneath the driver's seat a Titan II [sic] .380 caliber semi-automatic firearm, with a fully loaded magazine of 6 bullets. The gun was encased in a holster without a strap. Officer Annatone was not able to see a weapon from his vantage point outside and in back of the Camero. Respondent recognized the weapon as one purchased by Ms. Young. The gun was to be a surprise birthday present to Respondent. The present was chosen by Ms. Young because Respondent had recently obtained his correctional officer's license, was working at one of the local prisons and was authorized to carry a weapon while working. Unknown to Respondent, Ms. Young had hidden the weapon in the car. The car was used by both Respondent and Ms. Young. On or about September 21, 1992, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to carrying a concealed weapon. He was advised by his attorney that the plea would not have an impact on his correctional license. Adjudication was withheld. Respondent received the minimum fine and a short probation, which was completed successfully. Respondent is of good character and has never been in trouble either before or since this incident. Respondent was well thought of by the Daytona Beach Police and enrolled in and completed that Department's program to obtain a law enforcement officer's license even though he was on probation for this incident. Since Respondent did not know the gun was in the car and did not have any control or authority over the gun, he clearly did not knowingly or intentionally possess a concealed weapon. He therefore did not fail to maintain his good moral character. More importantly, however, even assuming he was aware of the gun being hidden in the car, it would be impossible for Respondent, who was and still is of good character, to lose that character upon the occurrence of the 1992 incident or plea. The facts simply do not support a finding that Respondent is of bad moral character or somehow failed to maintain his good character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Mark T. Lewis 1281 Brockett Road, Apartment 39F Clarkston, Georgia A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training 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 32302-1489
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate number 102208. He was certified on August 5, 1985. Respondent was employed as a deputy sheriff with the Osceola County Sheriff's Office at the time of this incident. On January 11, 1993, a woman parked her car at a convenience store. While she was in the store purchasing some items, Respondent placed a Polaroid photograph of his naked erect penis on the ground beside the driver's door of the car. The female was unknown to Respondent. She was shocked and disgusted by her discovery of the photograph. After being given his Miranda rights, Respondent admitted to an investigating detective that he had placed the photograph beside the car. He claimed that he had been under a lot of stress in his personal life at the time. Respondent later pleaded no contest to one count of a misdemeanor offense of distributing obscene material. The court withhold adjudication and placed him on probation for one year.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years and placing it on probation for a period of eight years, starting with the end of the suspension. The conditions of probation are that, first, Respondent produce satisfactory evidence from a licensed health care professional reasonably satisfactory to Petitioner that he is not likely to repeat this behavior and, second, that he continue counseling at the frequency and for the period of time recommended by the licensed health care professional. ENTERED on October 10, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 10, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy J. Bardill Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Randy J. Miller 1262 N 550 W Kokomo, Indiana 46901 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida 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.
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, Lydia Diaz (Diaz), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 26, 1988, 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 Diaz.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 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 Diaz 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 7, 1988, the Commission notified Diaz and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You unlawfully and knowingly obtained or used or endeavored to obtain or to use clothing, the property of Burdines with the intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of a right to the property or a benefit there from or to appropriate the property to your own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Diaz filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Diaz 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, Diaz filed an application with the County for employment as a correctional officer on October 8, 1987. Her application disclosed that she had used marijuana, the last time being in July 1987, and that she had been arrested for petit theft in 1979, but had not committed the offense. Regarding her use of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that Diaz did use marijuana on one occasion in July 1987. At the time, Diaz had been out to dinner with some girl friends, after which they stopped by an acquaintance's home to socialize. Upon arrival, someone was smoking marijuana and asked her to have some. Diaz initially refused, but upon the insistence of the group took a puff and passed it on to someone else. Other than this limited contact with marijuana, Diaz has only used the substance twice in her life, and that occurred at home, during the course of one evening, with her first husband in 1975. At that time, Diaz smoked marijuana, at her first husband's request, while they watched television that evening. But for this limited use, Diaz has not otherwise used marijuana or any other controlled substance. Regarding her arrest in March 1979 for petit theft, the proof demonstrates that such charges were dismissed and that Diaz did not commit the offense. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to her application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether she currently possesses the requisite moral character for employment. Here, Diaz, born November 2, 1955, used marijuana in July 1987, only 7 months before her employment by the County as a correctional officer. Such use was, by the County's own interpretation of the rules, proximate to her employment and should have resulted in the rejection of her application. Fred Crawford, then Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, made, however, an exception in Diaz' case, since her mother was an employee of long standing with his office, and employed her on the condition that she refrain from the use of any controlled substance and that she excel in her performance. Diaz has satisfied both conditions. Following her employment in February 1988, Diaz was graduated first in a class of 40 correctional officers from the academy. She was certified by the Commission on June 17, 1988, for completion of the 675-hour basic correctional officer course, and on October 13, 1988, for the 40-hour advanced report writing and review course. To date, Diaz has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. Her evaluations have been above 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. Apart from her exceptional performance as a correctional officer, Diaz has other traits that reflect well on her moral character. Currently she is remarried and the mother of three children. By those who know of her, she maintains a good home and is an excellent parent. In addition to her other responsibilities, she attends night school at Miami-Dade Community College, where she has made the Dean's list for having achieved all "A's" the last two terms. Diaz is also current on all her obligations, and enjoys a good credit reputation in the community. While Diaz' use of marijuana in July 1977 was proximate to her employment by the County, and should have resulted in the rejection of her application, this proceeding is a de novo hearing on her application for certification, and her qualifications are, therefore, evaluated as of the date of hearing. Here, her use of marijuana two times, the last time being almost 2 years ago, is not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ Rather, Diaz has demonstrated, on balance, that she 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, Lydia Diaz, 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.
