Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On June 16, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new 1/ 1994 Mitsubishi Galant ES that he had leased (for a 42-month period) from Potamkin Mitsubishi (hereinafter referred to as "Potamkin"), a Florida Mitsubishi Motors of America (hereinafter referred to as "Mitsubishi") dealership. Thereafter, problems developed with the vehicle's braking system, which caused the steering wheel to vibrate. Petitioner, who, under his lease agreement, was responsible for having the necessary repairs made to the vehicle, reported these problems to Potamkin. Potamkin was unable to completely remedy these problems within 18 months of the date of delivery (hereinafter referred to as the "18-month post- delivery period"). During the "18-month post-delivery period," Petitioner drove the vehicle less than 24,000 miles. The problems that Petitioner reported during the "18-month post- delivery" period still persist today. On or about January 24, 1995, Petitioner sent a completed Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form to the manufacturer of the vehicle, Mitsubishi, requesting that it "make a final attempt to correct the continued substantial defects" plaguing the vehicle. The defects were not remedied. On June 21, 1996, Petitioner filed with the Department a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. By letter dated June 26, 1996, the Department advised Petitioner that "a determination ha[d] been made in accordance with Chapter 681.109(6) Florida Statutes, and Rule 2-32.009(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, to reject [his request because t]he request was not submitted in a timely manner."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for arbitration because it is time-barred. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of December, 1996. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of December, 1996.
Conclusions _ This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order pursuant to an order closing the file at the Division of Administrative Hearings. The record reflects that the parties have settled their dispute and entered into a Settlement Stipulation. Having reviewed the stipulation and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Respondent shall pay a civil fine of $5,000.00. Payment shall be made in the form of a certified cashier’s check payable to The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and delivered to the Division of Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Field Operations, Region IV Office, at 1354 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida, 32720. Payment shall be delivered as set out herein within thirty (30) days of the entry of this final order by the Division of Motor Vehicles approving this settlement. Jan 2? 2010 11:57 DHSMY LEGAL TLH Fax: 850-617-5112 Jan 2? 2010 11:56am 002/009 2. Respondent agreed to voluntarily surrender its motor vehicle dealer license within thirty (30) days of the entry of this final order by the Division of Motor Vehicles approving the settlement. 3. Respondent expressly and affirmatively agreed that if it fails to timely pay the fine or to surrender its license as set forth herein the Petitioner will revoke its license without prior notice. Respondent further expressly and affirmatively waives its ability to challenge or appeal such revocation by any means in any forum whatsoever. 4. Florida Luxury Coach, LLC, may file an application for a motor vehicle dealer license pursuant to section 320.27, Florida Statutes. If Florida Luxury Coach, LLC, does apply, the: following conditions will apply: (a) The Petitioner will not rely on the violations alleged in the administrative complaint in this matter to deny the application or otherwise hold such violations against Florida Luxury Coach, LLC. (b) _—_- Victoria L. Scott will be the sole manager/member of Florida Luxury Coach, LLC. (c) Lon Neuville may be employed by Florida Luxury Coach, LLC, solely in a sales capacity. : (d) Victoria L. Scott and Florida Luxury Coach, LLC, expressly and affirmatively agree that no motor vehicle dealer license will be issued to it until the civil fine agreed to herein is paid and until the Respondent surrenders its motor vehicle dealer license. (e) Florida Luxury Coach, LLC, must meet the normal qualifications imposed by statute and administrative rule for issuance of a motor vehicle dealer license. (63) Failure to abide by the conditions of this agreement will be grounds for denial. or revocation of a motor vehicle dealer license to Florida Luxury Coach, LLC and Victoria L. Scott. 5. Victoria L. Scott signed the agreement individually, as a member of the Respondent and as a member of Florida Luxury Coach, LLC. 6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attomey fees in this matter. DHSMV LEGAL TLH Fax: 850-617-5112 Jan 2? 2010 11:56am P003/009 7. The undersigned warrant that they entered into this agreement freely and voluntarily and are doing so under advice of legal counsel. They further warrant that they have the full authority of their respective parties to enter into the agreement and to bind the parties to its terms. 8. Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. It is further ORDERED that the Settlement Stipulation of Petitioner and Respondent is adopted and incorporated into this Final Order f the Department in accordance with its terms. DONE AND.ORDERED this 2b ay of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kixkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Peter N. Hill, Esquire Wolff, Hill, McFarlin & Herron, P.A. 1851 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 A A. FORD, Directo Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkanan Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of January, 2010. Jan 2? 2010 OHSMV LEGAL TLH Fax: 850-617-5112 J.D. Parish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William Camper Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles Julie Gentry Chief, Bureau of Field Operations Nalint Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 11:5? Jan 27 2010 11:57am 004/009
The Issue Petitioner seeks to have the title to a specific motor vehicle cancelled and reissued to himself. The title at issue is currently in the name of John W. Klingerman. The central issue before the Hearing Officer is whether the title at issue was "improperly issued" by the Department so as to require cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. It was clear from the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner that the disposition of this case might adversely affect the substantial interests of John W. Klingerman, the person to whom the disputed certificate of title is presently issued. Accordingly, an order was issued requiring that Mr. Klingerman be notified of the pendency of this case and of his right to file a petition to intervene in this case. Mr. Klingerman was so notified more than two months prior to the final hearing in this case. Mr. Klingerman did not seek to participate in this case. The only witness at the hearing was the Petitioner. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were received in evidence by stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 10 were received in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was received with the caveat that it might later be disregarded by the Hearing Officer if, upon further consideration of the issues, the Hearing Officer determined it was not relevant. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the admission into evidence of Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 13 were rejected, but Petitioner was permitted to proffer them for inclusion in the record as rejected exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 was withdrawn by Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was received in evidence. Rulings on Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 9 and 12 Upon consideration of all of the legal issues in this case, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law hereinafter, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12 are irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the objections to those two exhibits are sustained and both exhibits will be treated as rejected exhibits proffered for inclusion in the record. Upon further consideration, it is also clear that Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, even though Exhibit 9 has been received in evidence, no findings of fact have been based on that exhibit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony presented at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During November of 1986, Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service embarked upon the process of enforcing a mechanic's lien on Petitioner's 1963 Ford Stationwagon, vehicle identification number 3T24F155323 (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner's vehicle.") The owner of Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service arranged for the paperwork regarding the mechanic's lien to be handled by an agent, Title Clearing Service. Title Clearing Service is operated by John Boesch and Carol Boesch. On November 21, 1986, John Boesch mailed a document titled Notice of Claim of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle to Petitioner at two different addresses. The documents were sent via certified mail. Both of the documents were returned to John Boesch because they were not delivered to the Petitioner. The documents mailed on November 21, 1986, contain all of the information itemized at Section 713.585(1)(a) through (i), Florida Statutes. On December 17, 1986, a notice of sale was published in the Fort Myers News-Press, a newspaper circulated in Lee County, Florida. The notice published in the newspaper read, in its entirety, as follows: LEGAL NOTICE OF SALE Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service, 5371 McGreagor Blvd., Fort Myers, Florida 33907 will hold a private sale on the following vehicle to satisfy lien pursuant to Chapter 713:585 of Florida Statue (sic) on January 5, 1987, at 8 a.m. 1963 Ford SW VIN #3T24F155323 Amount of Lien $2,027.95 (813) 549-0631 Dec. 17 No. 5247 Thereafter, on January 5, 1987, a private sale was conducted at which time John W. Klingerman purchased Petitioner's vehicle from Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service for $200.00. On January 13, 1987, John W. Klingerman applied to the Respondent for issuance of a certificate of title in his name, based on his purchase at the January 5, 1987, sale. On January 30, 1987, the Respondent issued a certificate of title to Petitioner's vehicle described above to John W. Klingerman of 1824 Coronado Road, Ft. Myers, Florida 323901-7008. Title Number 43916166 issued by the Respondent now shows John W. Klingerman as the owner of the 1963 Ford stationwagon bearing vehicle identification number 3T24F155323. The issuance of the certificate of title to John W. Klingerman was in reliance upon the application for certificate of title filed by John W. Klingerman and various supporting documents. The supporting documents included a copy of the certificate of compliance and the report of sale certified by the clerk of the court. Other supporting documents certified by the clerk of the court included copies of the Affidavit of Publication, the Notice Of Claim Of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle, the vehicle repair order, and envelopes reflecting efforts to mail notices to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's vehicle was previously titled in the state of South Carolina.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issue a final order in this case cancelling certificate of title number 43916166 issued to John W. Klingerman and that the Department thereafter notify John W. Klingerman of the cancellation of the certificate as provided in Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 22nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2613 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The paragraph numbers below correspond to the paragraph numbers of the parties' proposed findings. Rulings on Petitioners Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with exception of vehicle identification number, which is incomplete. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is accepted in substance, i.e., that publication of the notice was less than 20 days prior to scheduled sale and the newspaper publication contained insufficient information. Paragraph 8: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last sentence is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 9: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last two sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Entire paragraph rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 11: Entire paragraph rejected as primarily constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact. To the limited extent this paragraph contains factual matter, it is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted with exception of proposed purchase date. Greater weight of the evidence shows purchase date as January 5, 1987. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, but with most details omitted as irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 8: First sentence rejected as not fully consistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence rejected as argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Mr. Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of employing an unlicensed person to perform motor vehicle repossessions, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "E" Recovery Agent license, Number E00-00107, effective October 29, 1997, and expiring on October 29, 1999. Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator license, Number C00-010139, effective June 30, 1997, and expiring on June 30, 1999. Respondent holds a Class "ZR" Organizational Officer Position, Number ZR98-00005. Respondent owns TWI, Incorporated (TWI). TWI engages in the business of repossessing motor vehicles. Respondent also owns Florida State Towing Company and Florida State Transporting Company, which respectively engage in the businesses of towing motor vehicles and transporting motor vehicles. These three businesses operate out of the same business location. In 1996, TWI hired Ross Cardwell as a recovery agent intern. Mr. Cardwell applied for a recovery agent's license, but Respondent denied the application. Mr. Cardwell resigned from TWI and engaged in the repossession business in another state. Mr. Cardwell returned to Florida, and Florida State Towing Company rehired him on April 4, 1997. Respondent and Mr. Cardwell agreed that Mr. Cardwell would reapply for a recovery agent's license. In the meantime, Mr. Cardwell would tow vehicles for Florida State Towing Company. Respondent assigned Mr. Cardwell responsibilities in the field and the office. On several occasions, Mr. Cardwell assisted Respondent in repossessing motor vehicles. The procedure followed by Mr. Cardwell and Respondent was for Respondent to take control of the vehicle. After having done so, Respondent directed Mr. Cardwell to tow the vehicle to the company's lot. While Mr. Cardwell was towing the vehicle back to the lot, Respondent would locate other vehicles for repossession. Petitioner has produced evidence of company log entries that would suggest that Mr. Cardwell handled repossessions. However, these logs and anecdotal evidence in the form of testimony of two former employees is insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Cardwell performed acts that would require a recovery agent's license. There is no direct evidence of such unlawful acts by Mr. Cardwell, and Respondent's description of their method of doing business is entirely plausible. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cardwell performed acts that required a recovery agent's license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 23rd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Gordon R. Duncan Duncan & Tardif, P.A. Post Office Box 249 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Alphonso J. Clark is the holder of Florida teacher's certificate number 129341, valid since July 1, 1971, certifying him in the areas of administrative supervision, science, physical education, and guidance. For a period of approximately sixteen years, he was employed with the School Board of Pinellas County. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent held the position of Dean of Students at Clearwater High School. He was dismissed from employment by the Pinellas County School Board on June 8, 1983. No evidentiary hearing has held prior to that dismissal, and respondent was not questioned by any member of the School Board regarding the acts giving rise to his dismissal. Some time in 1978, respondent met Marc Hayes for the first time at a hotel lounge in Clearwater Beach. Mr. Hayes told respondent that he was from Michigan and knew executives with automobile manufacturers who received vehicles from their manufacturer and were willing to sell such vehicles at a substantially reduced price. Respondent indicated that he would be interested in purchasing a luxury vehicle at a reduced price. At this time, no formal order was given by the respondent for a specific automobile, nor was any money exchanged. Respondent did advise Mr. Hayes of his place of employment and where he could be located in the event that Mr. Haves was able to find a vehicle that respondent might desire to purchase. Some time in 1979, Mr. Hayes brought a 1978 silver "anniversary edition" Corvette to Clearwater High School for respondent's inspection to determine if he would be interested in buying it. The odometer on the Corvette indicated that it had been driven approximately 10,000 miles. There was a slight tear in the driver's seat, the interior had been stained and had a bad odor, the right rear fender had been damaged and repaired, the mirror on the driver's side was cracked and the exterior paint had a rough finish. Nevertheless, respondent agreed to purchase the Corvette for $7,000 because he felt he would be receiving a good bargain. Mr. Hayes then went to respondent's home and received a down payment of $1,000 from the respondent. Respondent did not sign any contract or loan agreement reflecting the transaction, nor did he receive any title or other document from Mr. Hayes reflecting his ownership or interest in the vehicle. Respondent told Mr. Hayes that he would pay the remainder of the purchase price upon receipt of the title. Respondent made two or three other payments to Mr. Hayes. When he made his final payment, Mr. Hayes gave him a Michigan titled to the Corvette. The title had respondent's name on it with a Michigan address. After asking Mr. Haves why the former owner's name did not appear on the title, it was respondent's understanding that the executive selling the car might get in trouble with his company. The respondent had never before purchased a car in a private transaction and without third- party financing. After purchasing the Corvette, respondent obtained a Florida registration, secured a Pinellas County license tag, and had the car insured and inspected. He drove the vehicle on a daily basis over the course of the next three years and its appearance was never altered. On two occasions over this approximate three-year period, respondent was stooped by law enforcement officers and the Corvette's registration, license, and vehicle inspection number were checked. On both occasions, respondent was given no indication that anything was wrong with the car. One of these occasions was apparently due to the fact that respondent's ex-wife had reported to the police that the Corvette had been stolen. Respondent explained that this occurred after a domestic dispute with his then wife. When she said "With your luck, the car is stolen," he retorted "if my luck is as good as marrying you, it probably is stolen." Thereafter, she reported the car as stolen. During the early months of 1983, detectives with the Clearwater Police Department were involved in the investigation of an interstate stolen car ring. A Mr. Raymond Huntley was first arrested for arranging for the sale of stolen vehicles. Apparently, Mr. Huntley obtained the cars from Wade Clark, who is the brother of respondent Alphonso Clark. It was determined that the stolen cars were being delivered to Florida from Michigan through Marc Hayes. A check of police records revealed that Marc Hayes had been arrested in Pinellas County on December 31, 1982, for a traffic law violation while driving a 1982 Cadillac which was registered in the respondent's name. This was the first time in the ongoing auto theft ring investigation that respondent's name had been mentioned. After checking with the National Auto Theft Bureau, it was determined that the vehicle identification number on the Cadillac was invalid, and it was later determined that the Cadillac was a stolen vehicle. The Cadillac itself was never located by the Clearwater Police Department. While the Cadillac registration was not received into evidence in this proceeding, respondent admitted that it was registered in his name. He explained that Marc Hayes desired to have a car available to him in Florida, and requested respondent to keep the Cadillac at his home, use it when he wanted, but have it available for the use of Mr. Hayes or his friends when they were in Florida. Hayes suggested that the Cadillac be registered in respondent's name since respondent would also be driving it. Respondent had no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the Cadillac, but assumed that Mr. Hayes had taken it, as he had done on other occasions. After discovering that the stolen Cadillac was registered in the respondent's name, and after arresting respondent's bother, the respondent himself became a suspect in the auto theft ring investigation. The detectives learned that respondent owned a Corvette. After going to the parking lot of Clearwater High School and looking through the windshield on the driver's side, the detectives were able to obtain the vehicle identification number for the Corvette. Further investigation revealed a Florida registration in the respondent's name with the same identification number, but it was discovered that the number was an invalid identification number for the Corvette. The Corvette was thereafter placed under surveillance. After locating the car in an open, but wooded area across the street from the respondent's residence, the detectives ordered that the Corvette be seized, and it was towed away for the purpose of inspecting the confidential vehicle identification number. An examination of the back of the confidential identification number plate revealed that the numbers had been altered. After checking the true numbers, the detectives ascertained that the Corvette had been reported stolen in Michigan in 1978. When the respondent discovered that the Corvette was missing from the lot across from his home, he called the Indian Rocks Beach Police to inquire about it. Be also called the owner of the property upon which the car was parked. Respondent first learned that the Corvette had been impounded when three law enforcement officers came to talk to him at Clearwater High School on or about May 3, 1983. While two of the officers testified that respondent acknowledged during that May 3rd conversation that he knew the Corvette was "hot," respondent denies making such a statement. Respondent was arrested on May 3, 1983, and was charged with auto grand theft. During the criminal proceedings, the original owner of the Corvette testified that he bought the car in February of 1978. Its sticker price at that time was $12,124, but he was able to purchase it on a company discount for approximately $10,000. The Corvette was stolen from the Ford Motor Company parking lot in Dearborn, Michigan in November of 1978. After respondent's arrest, a newspaper article appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on May 5, 1983, reporting that respondent was "one of three deans responsible for disciplining students at Clearwater High," and had been arrested and charged with auto grand theft. The same article reported that respondent's brother and others had also been arrested and that one of the cars recovered was the Corvette respondent drives to school. Respondent's arrest also received other coverage by the news media. After the St. Petersburg Times article appeared, the principal of Clearwater High School, as well as one of the other dean of students, received many inquiries from parents, students and other teachers regarding respondent's arrest. While there was some student support for the respondent, most of the comments from parents were negative. They voiced concern over the propriety of one who is arrested for auto theft having the authority to discipline their children. Prior to the publicity surrounding respondent's arrest, the principal considered respondent an effective employee. By letter dated May 4, 1983, respondent was notified that the Superintendent of Schools was suspending him from his duties as of the close of the school day on May 4, 1983, as an emergency measure. By letter dated May 9, 1983, respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend to the School Board on May 25, 1983, that respondent be dismissed and his contract cancelled on charges of immorality and misconduct in office. Respondent was advised that he was entitled to a hearing, but that the request for a hearing had to be received by May 23, 1983. By Final Order dated June 8, 1983, the School Board noted that respondent's request for a public hearing was not received until May 25, 1983, found that respondent was guilty of immorality and misconduct in office and dismissed him from employment effective May 26, 1983. At a judicial hearing held on January 19, 1984, Circuit Judge Maynard F. Swanson of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County granted a motion to suppress the contents of the Corvette, including the confidential vehicle identification number. Judge Swanson found that at the time the vehicle was seized, the law enforcement officers did not have probable or reasonable cause to believe that the Corvette was stolen. The criminal case against the respondent was dismissed by Order dated October 15, 1984, and filed on October 31, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against respondent on May 18, 1984, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Fla. 32301 L. Haldane Taylor 331 E. Union Street Jacksonville, Fla. 32202 Ronnie G. Crider 410 S. Lincoln Avenue Clearwater, Fla. 33516 Pamela L. Cooper 911 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Fla. 32202
