Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Chester K. Lewis (Lewis), applied to the Respondent, Department of Education (Department), for a Florida teacher's certificate. By letter of January 15, 1987, the Department advised Lewis that his application had been denied, and Lewis filed a timely request for formal hearing. Pertinent to this case, the application for teacher's certificate posed the following questions, and Lewis gave the following answers: - FULL TIME TEACHING EXPERIENCE Grades taught or No months Type School State District School if departmental- taught in Certi- Year (County) ized subjects school ficate taught term Held * * 1982 to Florida Dade Edison 1983 Park Elem. 9 1983 to Florida Dade Edison 1984 Park 9 1984 to Florida Dade Edison 1985 Park 9 1985 to Florida Dade Edison Varied 1986 Park Elem. 9 PLEASE CHECK ONE YES X NO Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. Where Arrested Dates Nature of Charge(s) Disposition(s) Trespassing Resist- Nolo Contendere Dade County 5/6/82 ing Arrest 9 mos served 1/19/83 NOTARIZATION I hereby certify that I subscribe to and will uphold the principles incorporated in the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Florida. I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true, correct and complete. /s/ Chester K. Lewis Signature of Applicant Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of June , 1986. My Commission Expires Seal and Signature of Notary Public Contrary to the sworn representations in part IV of the application, that he had been employed full time by the Dade County School Board for the school years 1982-83 through 1985-86, the proof established that Lewis was employed by the Dade County School Board as follows: For the 1982-83 school year Lewis was employed as a per diem (daily) substitute teacher, and worked only 29 days between March 1983 and June 1983. For the 1983-84 school year Lewis was employed as a daily substitute teacher, and worked at 5 different schools between November 1983 and June 1984 for a total of only 5 1/2 days. For the 1984-85 school year Lewis was employed as a daily substitute teacher, and worked at 5 different Schools between October 1984 and June 1985 for a total of only 15 days. For the 1985-86 school year Lewis was employed as a daily substitute teacher, and worked only 1 day during that school year. With respect to Lewis' response to part V of the application, the proof established that by Information filed May 27, 1982, in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 82-11708, he was charged with aggravated assault (Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes), battery upon a law enforcement officer (Sections 784.03 and 784.07, Florida Statutes), and resisting an officer with violence to his person (Section 843.01, Florida Statutes). On January 19, 1983, Lewis entered a plea of nolo contendere, and the court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of nine months. Regarding the substance of the charges, the proof established that on May 6, 1982, at or about 11:00 p.m., in Dade County, Florida, Lewis did commit the crimes of aggravated assault (Section 784.O2l(1)(a), Florida Statutes), battery upon a law enforcement officer (Sections 784.03 and 784.07, Florida Statutes), and resisting an officer with violence to his person (Section 843.01, Florida Statutes). At the aforesaid time and date, a uniformed Florida Highway Patrol Officer (trooper) responded to a request for assistance at the home of a female complainant (complainant) who professed a fear that Lewis would harm her. While at the complainant's residence, the trooper took a telephone call from Lewis, identified himself as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol, and asked Lewis what the problem was. Lewis replied: I don't care who the fuck you are. If I get over there in 15 minutes and you're there I'm going to kill you. Approximately 15 minutes later, Lewis drove up to the residence. The trooper then told Lewis: Look, we don't need a problem Just leave. She doesn't want to be bothered with you. Just leave so we don't have a problem with you. Lewis responded, "Fuck you", sped down the street, and turned the car to face the trooper. Lewis then sped his car at the trooper, who barely avoided injury by jumping out of the way of Lewis' vehicle. Lewis then drove his car into an alley, and as the trooper approached from the rear Lewis attempted to back his car over the trooper. Again the trooper barely avoided injury. Subsequently, Lewis jumped from the car, and ran toward the complainant's residence. At that time the trooper removed the keys from the ignition of Lewis' car, and pursued Lewis. Fortunately, a backup unit from the Metro-Dade Police Department arrived and Lewis fled to his car and tried to lock himself inside. The trooper, noting that the front passenger door was open, entered the vehicle to arrest Lewis. During the course of the trooper's efforts to arrest him, Lewis repeatedly punched and kicked the trooper. Lewis' conduct demonstrated gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. His conduct was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience, and was sufficiently notorious to bring himself and his profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Due to such notoriety, Lewis' service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, has been severely impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Petitioner, Chester K. Lewis, for a Florida teacher's certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 8th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Chester K. Lewis 1028 N.W. Third Avenue, #1 Miami, Florida 33136 Marlene T. Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted an exemption to work in a position of special trust, pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since July 1997, Petitioner has been employed continuously as a driver for Big Bend Transit, Inc., an organization that provides transportation services to disadvantaged persons. In this capacity, Petitioner provided direct hands-on care to children and disabled adults by driving them from place to place in the course of her job. When Petitioner was hired by Big Bend Transit, Inc., she was screened, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. It was determined during this screening that Petitioner had been convicted of a felony for possession of cocaine in 1987 and convicted of the misdemeanor of petit theft in 1994. Both of these offenses occurred in Florida. By operation of law, Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust on the basis of her 1987 conviction for possession of cocaine. It was stipulated by the parties that the petit theft conviction is non-disqualifying. Petitioner also has had a lengthy involvement with, and dependence on, alcohol and cocaine. From before her 1987 conviction for possession of cocaine until at least August 1994, Petitioner regularly used these drugs to excess. Petitioner and her immediate supervisor, Ms. Eddie B. Smith (no relation), were both apparently under the erroneous impression that it was acceptable for Petitioner to continue her employment in a position of special trust, despite the disqualification letter sent them by certified mail on January 26, 1998. There was nothing unclear about the Agency's notification letter. Petitioner has had an incident-free driving record with Big Bend Transit since her employment. Eddie B. Smith, is the Big Bend Transit supervisor for Petitioner. Ms. Smith has never ridden with Petitioner in the Big Bend van nor has she ever observed Petitioner driving the van. However, she considers Petitioner to be a safe, dependable, responsible driver and employee. She testified that among other Big Bend employees and their disadvantaged clientele, Petitioner's reputation is that "all speak highly of her." Although Eddie B. Smith did not know Petitioner prior to her drug rehabilitation, she is aware of Petitioner's past record and experiences, and still wishes to employ her. From 1987 to 1994, Petitioner repeatedly attended and participated in several substance abuse programs, none of which were successful for her. Notwithstanding her substance abuse during the foregoing period, Petitioner managed to maintain regular employment. Petitioner admitted that the shoplifting incident in September 1994 was inspired by her need to get money to buy cocaine and/or alcohol. However, in August 1994, Petitioner had voluntarily entered detox at Apalachee Center for Human Services, in Tallahassee, and voluntarily proceeded immediately afterward to the residential drug rehabilitation program run by Promise Land Ministries in Crawfordville, Florida. Petitioner admitted to one relapse using alcohol in early 1995, but forthrightly asserted that she knows now that she cannot even take one drink of alcohol, let alone use it socially. Petitioner also used drugs on her one night of relapse. She testified that she has not used either alcohol or drugs since that date in 1995. Petitioner quit smoking cigarettes approximately one year before formal hearing. Primary to Petitioner's successful rehabilitation has been her love for, and taking responsibility for the care of, her son, who is now seven years old. On November 14, 1995, Petitioner tested negative for the use of drugs as part of her employment with Cabot Lodge Motel in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner also took a mandatory drug screening test ordered by Big Bend Transit when she went to work for that corporation in July 1997. She also tested drug-free on that occasion. The foregoing two successful drug tests are only accurate to show that Petitioner had not used cocaine or other illegal drugs for a period of two to three days prior to the administration of each test. Petitioner is buying her own home at Lake Talquin Resort. She is a community leader and holds the position of a Director on the Board of the Home Owners' Association at Lake Talquin Resort. As a Director, Petitioner oversees the maintenance and quality of her trailer park neighborhood. Petitioner runs her own yard and cleanup service to supplement her regular employment with Big Bend Transit and also baby-sits for her friends and neighbors. Petitioner's immediate neighbors, who know her both professionally and intimately as a friend and baby-sitter for their nine-year-old son, are Sergeant Shelton Turner of the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office and his wife, Annetheria. According to Mr. and Mrs. Turner, Petitioner is a model neighbor and friend. Both expressed the sentiment that "my house is her house." Mr. Turner serves on the Home Owners' Association Board with Petitioner. He has known Petitioner for ten years and testified that since her rehabilitation, Petitioner has made a 360-degree change in her life. He considers her totally rehabilitated and has seen her "transformation." Sergeant Turner has had an opportunity to observe Petitioner in her home at all hours of the day and night and testified that, "[She's] not in that old white station wagon at the drug hole [anymore]... no one with drugs is ever hanging on [at her house]." Sergeant Turner further testified that two signs of drug abuse can never be observed in Petitioner's home, e.g., the lights are never cut off for failure to pay, and there is always food in the house. Antheria Turner is a Program Director at a group home for the elderly, where she has observed Petitioner with disadvantaged clients. She testified that, "If there were a position in one of my homes, I would have no problem hiring her." Mrs. Turner has only known Petitioner for the last three years during which time Petitioner has been drug-free, but she is well aware of Petitioner's past criminal record and drug/alcohol dependency. Petitioner is an active church-goer and credits her religious faith as another reason for her continued rehabilitation. She is characterized by Ms. Turner as a "good Christian." Edith Smith is the former owner of Precious Angels Family Home Daycare. Ms. Smith is employed elsewhere at the present time, but has known Petitioner for six to seven years. She also has had an opportunity to observe Petitioner's transition, subsequent to her final successful drug rehabilitation. Before rehabilitation, she would distance herself from Petitioner but now Petitioner often babysits for Ms. Smith's four year old daughter, and Ms. Smith considers Petitioner to be "very loving and caring around children," and trustworthy. At formal hearing, the Department presented one witness, a district screening coordinator who did not recommend that Petitioner be granted an exemption from disqualification. She speculated that the Petitioner might be somehow "covering up" possible continued weekend drug abuse. Her testimony is to the effect that if Petitioner could remain fully employed while "using," the fact that Petitioner has remained fully employed since she quit "using" in 1995 should not be considered as part of the evidence of good moral character. Ms. LeClair's testimony does not amount to either a policy statement by the agency or an expert opinion that Petitioner's current full time employment should be held against her. The Department seemed to merely assert a "legal position" that a longer period of rehabilitation should be necessary to clearly and convincingly establish Petitioner's good moral character, under the circumstances of this case.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner Jacqueline Smith's request for exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Thornburn, Esquire Grant Dearborn, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. Suite 200 8 West Jefferson Street Quincy, Florida 32351 John Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 100A Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Service Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for a real estate salesperson license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is 29 years old. He is currently selling timeshare units at the Westgate Resort in the Orlando area. He also works part-time as a pizza delivery person. Petitioner is being paid on an hourly basis by Westgate, since he does not hold a real estate salesperson license. If he had a license, he could be paid on commission and would have the potential to earn more money. In April 2002, Petitioner completed a three-week long "real estate school" and passed the related examination. In June 2002, Petitioner filed with the Department an application for a real estate salesperson license. The Department and the Commission are the state agencies responsible for licensing and regulating real estate professionals in Florida. On the application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question as to whether he had been convicted of, found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any crime. He listed the following offenses: petty theft; trespassing; false information; obstructing justice; and domestic battery. Each of the offenses except for the domestic battery occurred in Sarpy County, Nebraska, where Petitioner lived prior to coming to Florida. The domestic battery occurred in Osceola County, Florida. The petty theft offense occurred in 1994, when Petitioner and a friend stole a street sign that bore one of their names. Petitioner was 19 years old at the time. He paid restitution of $150 for the street sign to resolve the charge. The trespassing offense occurred in 1995 when Petitioner and a friend were caught swimming in a public pool after hours. Petitioner was 20 years old at the time. He paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The false information offense occurred in 1996 when Petitioner knowingly and intentionally lied to a police officer regarding the identity of the friend who was riding in Petitioner's car. The friend had a warrant and he asked Petitioner to give the police officer a false name for him, which Petitioner did. Petitioner was 21 years old at the time, and he paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The obstructing justice offense occurred in 1997 when Petitioner was at a party and refused to open the door for the police, who had been called to the party to investigate a sexual assault. The party was not at Petitioner's home, and he was not charged in connection with the sexual assault. Petitioner was 22 years old at the time, and he paid a $75 fine to resolve the charge. The record does not include the arrest reports or judgments related to the Nebraska offenses, which would detail whether the offenses were felonies or misdemeanors and would establish the precise legal dispositions of those cases. However, Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that he simply paid a fine to resolve the charges against him suggests that the offenses were misdemeanors and that Petitioner either pled guilty or "no contest" (i.e., nolo contendere). The domestic battery offense occurred in March 2001 and involved Petitioner's then-fiancée, Sheila Almodovar. Ms. Almodovar is the mother of Petitioner's daughter, who was born in October 1999. The domestic battery offense stemmed from an argument that Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar were having in their shared apartment. Petitioner was arrested after the police were called to the apartment by Ms. Almodovar, and they observed a bruise on Ms. Almodovar's face. Ms. Almodovar told the police that the bruise was caused by Petitioner. At the hearing, Ms. Almodovar testified that she had lied to the police regarding the source of the bruise. She testified that Petitioner did not strike her, but instead only "moved her out of the way" as he was leaving the apartment. She further testified that she caused the bruise to her own face by hitting it against the wall in the bathroom after Petitioner left the apartment and that Petitioner did not see her bang her head. Petitioner's testimony at the hearing regarding the incident was virtually identical to Ms. Almodovar's testimony, but it is inconsistent in some respects with the sworn testimony that he gave to the Commission in April 2003. At that time, Petitioner testified that he actually saw Ms. Almodovar bang her head against the wall in the bedroom. After the domestic battery incident, Petitioner spent the weekend in jail. He testified that he pled "no contest" to the charge; that adjudication was withheld; and that he was sentenced to probation, community service, and required to take domestic violence and anger management classes, all of which he satisfactorily completed. On July 19, 2002, Petitioner's license application was "administratively denied" because of his criminal record, and he was directed to appear before the Commission on August 21, 2002, to answer questions regarding his application. In advance of his appearance before the Commission, Petitioner presented three letters of recommendation to the Commission. The letters were from his father, Ms. Almodovar, and Ms. Almodovar's sister. The letters praised Petitioner's actions in taking care of his daughter and referred to his "ambition" and "motivation" to succeed in the real estate profession. Petitioner attended the August 21, 2002, Commission meeting as directed. The Commission gave Petitioner an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding each of the offenses listed on his application, which Petitioner attempted to do. At the end of the meeting, the Commission voted to deny Petitioner's license application. The denial was memorialized by the Commission in an Order dated August 29, 2002. In September 2002, Petitioner was again arrested for domestic battery involving Ms. Almodovar. According to Petitioner, the incident occurred when he and Ms. Almodovar got into an argument when Petitioner was picking up his daughter from Ms. Almodovar. The police report from the incident was not introduced into evidence, and the circumstances giving rise to Petitioner's arrest are not entirely clear from the testimony of Ms. Almodovar and Petitioner at the hearing. Petitioner testified that he spent 60 days in jail after his arrest but that the charges against him were ultimately "dropped." Ms. Almodovar testified at the hearing that Petitioner "did not deserve" to be arrested for the September 2002 incident because she had lied to the police regarding what Petitioner had done. Petitioner testified that Ms. Almodovar's sister, who was a witness to the confrontation, was going to testify for him if the case went to trial. Ms. Almodovar blamed her actions towards Petitioner and her lying to the police on her mental instability. She testified that she has been diagnosed as being "bi-polar" and that she is seeing a psychiatrist and is on medication for her mental instability. On April 16, 2003, the Commission considered Petitioner's license application in response to his request for reconsideration of the August 2002 denial. Petitioner and his father both addressed the Commission and responded to questions from the Commission members. Again, Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding each of his prior incidents. There were several passing references to the second incident of domestic battery at the April 2003 Commission meeting. However, it was clear from the transcript of that meeting that the members of the Commission were confused regarding the circumstances of each incident or were unaware that there were two separate incidents. Petitioner did nothing to clarify the Commission's confusion and, indeed, actually added to that confusion by discussing both incidents together without distinguishing between them. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission again voted to deny Petitioner's license application. That decision was memorialized by the Commission in an Order dated April 16, 2003. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed his request for a formal administrative hearing, which led to this proceeding. In August 2003, Petitioner was arrested for possession of marijuana. The arrest report is not part of the record, but Petitioner testified that he was charged only with a misdemeanor. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that marijuana was found in his car, but he claimed that it did not belong to him. Instead, both Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar testified that the marijuana belonged to Ms. Almodovar's sister, whom Petitioner was living with at the time. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Almodovar's sister "set him up" for the arrest as a means to get him to leave the apartment that they shared. Petitioner has a lawyer and is "fighting" the possession of marijuana charge. The record does not reflect where that case is in the judicial process. The testimony given by Petitioner and Ms. Almodovar at the hearing regarding the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's recent offenses was not patently unbelievable, but it was not overly persuasive either. For example, it is difficult to square Petitioner's claim that he was "set up" on the possession of marijuana charge by Ms. Almodovar's sister when she had previously written a letter of recommendation for Petitioner in which she characterized him as a "friend" and a "model citizen" and that she was allegedly prepared to testify for Petitioner in connection with the September 2002 domestic violence incident. At the time Petitioner filed his license application, he was raising his daughter on his own because Ms. Almodovar was unable to do so as a result of her mental instability. Subsequently, Ms. Almodovar began receiving counseling and taking medication which has allowed her to share custody of the daughter with Petitioner. As a result, there is no inconsistency between the statements on Petitioner's application and in the recommendation letters regarding his status as a single parent and Petitioner's testimony before the Commission in April 2003 that he had shared custody of his daughter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order denying Petitioner's license application. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's expulsion of Respondent from school is appropriate pursuant to provisions of Union County School Board Rule 5.37 and Section 230.23(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is R.S.V. He was a senior year student at Union County High School in October, 1994. Donald Leech was the principal of Union County High School in October, 1994, when he was apprised that there was a possibility of sale and possession of marijuana at the school. Leech contacted the school resource officer, Union County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Townsend, Jr., and an investigation was launched. Efforts of Townsend and Leech failed to yield any evidence of contraband substances on the school campus that could be linked to any individual or tested for purposes of subsequent prosecution. They had, however, obtained information about an event involving the alleged use of marijuana which had occurred on the school campus and allegedly involved Respondent. As a result, their investigation focused on Respondent. Townsend was apprised by his superior at the sheriff's department that a criminal prosecution could not be maintained due to the lack of admissible evidence or a "corpus delicti." Still, Leech and Townsend determined to question Respondent. On October 11, 1994, Leech and Townsend interrogated Respondent regarding his participation in the possession of a marijuana "joint" on school property on October 6, 1994. Townsend first apprised Respondent of his right against self- incrimination through the reading to Respondent of "Miranda" warnings regarding incriminating statements. The questioning then began. In response to questions, Respondent denied any knowledge of the October 6, 1994, incident. Leech failed to gain an admission from Respondent even though Leech advised Respondent that suspension for 10 days for being in an improper area (the school parking lot) was the only likely penalty. Leech then left the room. Respondent asked to telephone his mother. Townsend agreed. Respondent called his mother and explained the situation to her. She asked to speak with Townsend. Townsend told her that sufficient evidence existed to criminally prosecute Respondent. Respondent's mother told Townsend to cease questioning her son until Respondent's father arrived. Townsend complied and left Respondent alone in the room. Respondent's father soon arrived. He did not speak with Respondent. He, likewise, was informed by Townsend that sufficient evidence for prosecution existed, but that co- operation by Respondent would go a long way with authorities and have an impact on the likelihood of prosecution. Then, with the assent of Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father spoke privately with two other youths who were alleged to be involved in the incident. As a result of his conversation with the two youths, Respondent's father learned that his son had been present at a incident on school property where an alleged marijuana cigarette had been smoked but that his son had refused to participate in smoking the "joint." Respondent's father then spoke with Leech and Townsend. In addition to the earlier advice by Townsend of leniency if his son co-operated with the investigation, Respondent's father was now informed by Leech that only a 10 day suspension from school was contemplated because of Respondent's presence during the incident which had occurred in the school parking lot, an "improper area." Without any discussion with his son or legal counsel and solely in reliance upon the representations made to him by Leech and Townsend, Respondent's father then confronted his son and told Respondent to provide a written statement to Leech and Townsend. Respondent's statement reads as follows: On October 6, 1994. Myself, people 1 and people 2 walked out to the parking lot. People 1 lit up a marijuana joint and smoked it then passed it to people 2. After that, people 2 passed it to me. The 2 peoples walked off and I put it out and left it in the parking lot. After school I picked it up and kept it. Respondent later admitted to his father that he subsequently destroyed the remains of the cigarette after leaving school property. While Respondent's written statement references a "marijuana joint", no evidence was presented at the final hearing which is dispositive of whether the substance was, in actuality, cannabis. On the basis of Respondent's written statement, Leech instituted an immediate 10 day suspension of Respondent. On October 13, 1994, two days later, Leech formally recommended to the Union County School Superintendent, Eugene Dukes, that Respondent be expelled for the remainder of the school year. At final hearing, Leech rationalized that his expulsion recommendation was based upon Respondent's actual possession of the alleged contraband, as opposed to merely being present at the incident. By notice dated October 12, 1994, one day before the formal notification to him from Leech, Respondent's mother was informed by Superintendent Dukes that he would recommend the expulsion of Respondent for the remainder of the school year. The notice set forth no specific factual basis for the expulsion recommendation, but recited that the action was taken on the basis of misconduct charges set forth in Section 230.33 and Section 232.26, Florida Statutes, as well as Union County School Board Rules Section 5.37. Dukes also recommended the expulsion of the other students who admitted to actually smoking the alleged marijuana cigarette in question. The proposed expulsion of Respondent prevented his return to Union County High School and resulted in his completion of his senior year of high school in the school district of Columbia County, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Union County School Board imposing a 10 day suspension upon Respondent for violation of school restrictions regarding his presence in an improper location. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order direct the destruction or sealing of school records that document the expulsion of Respondent for possession of a controlled substance due to the absence of credible evidence to sustain such charge. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 8th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1. Accepted. 2.-11. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 12.-13. Rejected, legal conclusions, relevancy. 14. Rejected as to first preparatory phrase of the paragraph as unsupported by weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to result reached. 15.-16. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 17.-18. Incorporated by reference. 19.-20. Rejected, subordinate. 21. Rejected, legal conclusion. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Accepted, but not verbatim. Incorporated by reference. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Meyer and Brooks Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen N. Bernstein, Esquire Post Office Box 1642 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Eugene Dukes, Superintendent Union County School Board 55 West Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pobst had been employed by Petitioner and had obtained permanent status in the career service as a half-time University Parking Patroller, at the time he transferred to the position of Motor Vehicle Operator (MVO) on Friday, April 18, 1986. At that time, he came under the supervision of Terry Fisher, Store Supervisor of the University's Central Receiving Department. The MVO position was full time, with regular hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Pobst was on probationary status in that job classification at all times relevant to these proceedings. Prior to being hired in that position he had been counseled by Eugene Weber, Stores Manager (supervisor to Terry Fisher), concerning abuse of leave, but the emphasis was on sick leave abuses. On Monday, April 28, 1986, Pobst reported one hour late due to a weekend holdup, and immediately requested and received authorization from Fisher to take unpaid leave so as to obtain a copy of a report from the Tampa Police Department. Pobst had no annual leave available. When he transferred positions he was already in arrears for time off and already owed money for that time off. Fisher requested that Pobst telephone him later in the day. Respondent completed his business with the Tampa Police Department late in the day and did not need additional time. Nevertheless, he did not call Fisher because the work day was completed when he had the first opportunity to call in. Both Pobst and Fisher understood that Pobst would return to work no later than the beginning of the workday on Tuesday, April 29, 1986. Fisher would have granted additional leave on the same terms (unpaid leave with payroll deduction) had Pobst called in, however, Pobst never called in. Pobst did not report for work on Tuesday, April 29; Wednesday, April 30; Thursday, May 1; or Friday, May 2. From the time Respondent left Fisher on the morning of April 28 until the morning of Sunday, May 4, 1986, Respondent had no contact with his immediate supervisor or with any other individual in his chain of supervision at the University. Late the night of April 28, Pobst was injured in a fight. At 12:30 a.m. on April 29, Pobst was arrested for aggravated assault. The charge was ultimately dismissed by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. However, he arrived at Hillsborough County Sheriff's Central Booking at 2:20 a.m., was booked at 4:54 a.m., and processed at 6:15 a.m. on April 29. From 2:20 a.m. until 6:15 a.m. on April 29, Pobst was either in a Booking/Releasing Section holding cell without telephones, or on a bench in the Receiving Area with two regular local-only telephones as well as two collect-only telephones that resemble pay telephones. He made one telephone call from a collect call telephone. He made that call to the information operator, in an attempt to get Terry Fisher's home telephone number. The call was refused by the information operator because it "was made from a collect call telephone." Respondent was not allowed to make a second telephone call at that time but was told by the officer in charge of him that he would have an opportunity later to make another call. In any case, Pobst would have been unsuccessful in getting Terry Fisher's home phone number because it was unlisted. He did not again ask to use the telephone for the remainder of April 29, 1986, either during business hours when he might have reached Fisher at work or after business hours. From 6:15 a.m. until approximately 1:00 p.m. on April 29, Respondent was in a Housing and Support Section holding cell consisting of three rooms: a dayroom with collect-only telephones that resemble pay telephones; a sleeping room without telephones; and a vestibule between the sleeping and dayrooms. This was cell 200C/2, which is one of several individual sleeping rooms opening onto a common dayroom with collect-only telephones operable from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Although the sleeping area and dayroom are normally kept locked, confined persons usually have free access to both areas 24 hours a day. However, there are times and circumstances in which the areas are separately locked, and confined persons do not have such free access. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on April 29, Respondent was moved to the infirmary for examination and on medical staff instruction was placed in cell 200C/2 "B", a lockdown cell for medical observation. This particular lockdown cell was intended for confined persons who were deemed to need psychiatric observation. In the psychiatric medical lockdown area, incarcerated persons normally are allowed out of their cells for one hour per day to take a shower, watch television, or make telephone calls. However, special circumstances or inappropriate behavior may result in an inmate being denied the opportunity to leave his cell on any given day. Respondent had no access to a telephone during the move, wait, or infirmary/dispensary visit. Although Pobst's testimony emphasized his physical injuries and confused state of mind resulting from the assault by third persons leading up to his arrest in the midnight hours of April 28-29, he also related that while awaiting medical examination on April 29, he engaged in a fight with three police officers who requested that he undress for the physical examination. It appears to be this belligerent attitude which resulted in his being confined in restraints thereafter. Respondent's candor and demeanor and various inconsistencies in his testimony do not render him credible on the issue of inability to contact his employer during the whole of the time prior to his being placed in restraints or the period after he was released therefrom. His testimony that he was so confused at all times that he could not ask for a phone is not believable in light of the police log that he was in "good" condition on May 2, the testimony of Officer Blackwood that even a very "bad" prisoner would get to use the phone or write a letter if he just asked to do so, and that the property inventory showed Pobst had available $.85 for stamps or a local phone call. For these same reasons, Respondent's testimony that he was not permitted to use the phone at any time is not credible. Respondent's father testified to Respondent's disheveled and beat-up appearance on Friday, May 2, but Respondent appears to have been capable of coherent conversation. Respondent did not visit a medical doctor until May 7, 1986, five days after his release, and then did so primarily for the purpose of obtaining a medical excuse in an attempt to be rehired. Pobst was first placed in restraints at some time on Wednesday, April 30, and was in and out of restraints that day and the next, Thursday, May 1. An individual is placed in medically-approved restraints if he is viewed by the staff as a danger to others, or if the medical staff believes that he is at risk to commit suicide. An individual in restraints may not be allowed out of his cell on any given day and in this condition he is not permitted to use the telephone. On Wednesday, April 30, Fisher advised Eugene Weber, Stores Manager, that Pobst had not reported for work or called in since their Monday conversation. On April 30, after telephoning at least four area hospitals, Fisher telephoned Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Central Booking and was informed that Pobst was in jail for aggravated assault and that all inmates could make as many telephone calls as they wanted. Fisher reported this information to Weber who reported the same to his supervisor, Keith Simmons, Director of Procurement. 1/ On Thursday, May 1, Simmons telephoned Hillsborough County Jail Central to confirm Fisher's report that Pobst had access to a telephone and was told that all an inmate had to do was ask and that inmates are let out for just such purpose each day. In reliance on this information, Simmons contacted Roland Carrington, Director of Labor Management Relations, requested advice regarding the appropriate University response to Respondent's unauthorized absences, and was told it was appropriate to invoke the job abandonment rule. On Friday, May 2, Respondent Pobst was not in restraints at any time during the day, and his condition and attitude were both noted as "good" on the police log completed at 10:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Respondent did not ask to use a telephone on Friday, May 2 until at least 5:00 p.m., at which time he telephoned his mother in Indiana and then waited in the dayroom for release. When Respondent was allowed to use the telephone on May 2, 1986, he instructed his mother to have his father call his employer to notify him of his whereabouts. She in turn telephoned his father, Robert Pobst, in Tampa. Robert Pobst called for his son at 8:25 p.m. and effected release on bond at 9:40 p.m. on Friday, May 2. After being released from jail at 9:40 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 1986, both Respondent Pobst and his father attempted to reach Respondent's superiors at the University of South Florida. Respondent also attempted to reach Terry Fisher at home, but did not have enough information to get in touch with the right person. On Sunday, May 4, Respondent reached Weber at home by telephone. Pobst explained the circumstances of his absence to Mr. Weber, and informed him he desired to report for work the following morning. Weber explained that Respondent's unauthorized absence was deemed as a resignation via job abandonment and that the paper work had already been processed. However, the true chronology is that upon Weber's notification Friday, May 2, that Pobst had again failed to appear or call that day, Simmons instructed his administrative assistant to prepare a letter of notification to Pobst. The letter provided that he was deemed to have resigned via abandonment. However, it was not until Monday, May 5, 1986, that Simmons actually mailed Pobst the notification of acceptance of his resignation via job abandonment by certified mail, return receipt requested. On Monday, May 5, 1986, before receiving the official notification of abandonment, Pobst reported to the University one hour before the beginning of the work day. At that time Pobst's request for reconsideration of his resignation via abandonment was declined by Simmons in reliance on information from the Sheriff's Department which contradicted Respondent's assertion that he was unable to contact the University during the whole of April 29 through May 2 inclusive. Terry Fisher had the authority to grant Pobst leave for the time he was incarcerated in the Hillsborough County Jail, and would have done so had Respondent given him a telephone call requesting such leave. On April 30, 1986, Terry Fisher, Eugene Weber, and Keith Simmons, all had knowledge that Respondent was incarcerated in the Hillsborough County Jail and had not appeared for work because he was physically unable to be present at work. Although each of Respondent's superiors knew that Respondent was incarcerated in the Hillsborough County Jail and was unable to be at work for that reason, none made any attempt to contact Respondent in order to gain direct information on his employment status or intentions. It was not demonstrated that any University supervisor had any animosity toward Pobst, and it appears that it was not Pobst's being in jail but his failure to call in and their belief that he could have called in and did not do so that influenced Pobst's superiors to invoke the resignation via abandonment rule on May 2. Mr. Weber specifically chose to invoke the rule because he had made a negative assessment of Pobst's credibility from previous absence excuses and because he relied on the telephone representations by law enforcement personnel that Pobst could have called at any time. Additionally, Weber, who was Fisher's superior, took into consideration that late April and early May was an especially busy time of year for Central Receiving because it was the end of the fiscal year and all University departments were receiving large orders in an attempt to exhaust their old budgets before claiming new ones. After May 5, Respondent made numerous efforts to regain his employment. He talked with Fisher, Weber, Simmons, and Roland Carrington in the University's Personnel Office. He requested his then-current position, OPS employment, and work he had performed prior to his transfer on April 18, 1986. Following his termination from employment Respondent made an application for Unemployment Compensation. Because the University of South Florida initially contested his eligibility, Respondent was required to appeal the initial denial of unemployment compensation. Thereafter, Respondent and the University of South Florida were parties before an appeals referee, who conducted a de novo evidentiary hearing. The issue before the appeals referee was whether Respondent "voluntarily left employment without good cause." In determining this issue, the appeals referee applied a test of "good cause" associated with "misconduct" as those words of art are defined or contemplated in Chapter 443 Florida Statutes, determined that Respondent had committed no misconduct, and awarded unemployment compensation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent to have abandoned his position with the University of South Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of April, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 10th day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein including the post-hearing depositions filed herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent, Gregory Sweeting, was employed as a buyer in the Bureau of Business Management, Dade County School Board. On August 6, 1981 at approximately 2:16 a.m., Respondent was arrested on the corner of 79th Street and 5th Avenue in Miami by Officer Alex Alvarez, a detective with the Metro Dade County Police Department. Officer Alvarez arrested Respondent for driving a vehicle without a valid driver's license. Respondent was later charged with driving a motor vehicle while his driver's license was suspended. Immediately upon Officer Alvarez's advice to Respondent that he was being placed under arrest, he (Respondent) was further notified that his vehicle would be inventoried at the site and thereafter it would be impounded. An inventory of Respondent's car revealed the following items: Approximately 500 empty gelatin capsules; A 22-caliber revolver; A bag containing approximately 20 grams of suspected cocaine; A bottle of mannitol (a substance commonly used to cut cocaine) A mirror, vial, straws, sharp knives, razor blades, scales and strainers. Officer Alvarez retained the suspected cocaine substance in his possession, sealed it and transferred it to the Dade County Crime Laboratory where the suspected cocaine substance was analyzed by Chemist Harry Coleman, a chemist employed by the Dade County Crime Laboratory in excess of twelve years. Chemist Coleman analyzed the suspected cocaine and his analysis revealed the presence of cocaine in the substance analyzed. The items were transferred to Chemist Coleman in a sealed envelope and the transfer was made in a normal course and received in a sealed envelope by a police courier from the Dade County Police Department. By letter dated August 12, 1981, Superintendent Leonard Britton of the Dade County School Board advised Respondent, Gregory Sweeting, that he was suspended from his employment with the School Board and that he would be filing an intent to recommend that he be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County. On August 19, 1981, the School Board approved the suspension of employee Gregory Sweeting and dismissal proceedings were instituted by the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Gregory Sweeting from his employment as a buyer with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 13th day of July, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On August 28, 1987, Respondent was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 19-87-002-04. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer with the City of Miami Police Department. Respondent was born in Marianna, Florida, but was reared in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent has lived and worked in the Liberty City and Overtown areas of Miami for many years. Prior to becoming employed with the City of Miami Police Department, Respondent was graduated from Florida A & M University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Additionally, he had completed police academy training and had served as a reservist in the U.S. Navy. According to Respondent, he is a natural leader and has acquired discipline from his military experiences. During the early morning hour of September 18, 1988, Respondent was on duty in a marked police vehicle patrolling an area of Miami in the vicinity of 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard. Respondent was armed, dressed in his police uniform, and accompanied by another uniformed officer, Efrain Grillo. At approximately 12:00 a.m. on that date, Respondent observed a white female standing in the curb area along Biscayne Boulevard. The Respondent later learned that the female's name was Linda MacArthur. At that time, however, he recognized her from a prior encounter he had had with her in the Overtown area approximately a month before. At that time, Respondent believed Ms. MacArthur to be a prostitute. Officer Grillo pulled the police car over to the curb where Ms. MacArthur was standing. Respondent directed her to enter the back seat of the vehicle and she complied. Prior to being directed to enter the vehicle, Ms. MacArthur was not placed under arrest, was not advised that she was being transported for questioning, and had not committed a criminal offense in the officers' presence. Neither Respondent nor Officer Grillo notified police dispatch that they were transporting a female passenger. Such notification is required by police policy. After Ms. MacArthur entered the police vehicle, the Respondent and Officer Grillo took her to a dead end street located at approximately 23rd Street and 2nd Avenue. Once there, the three individuals exited the police car and walked over to a dumpster that blocked the end of the paved street. After exiting the vehicle, Respondent obtained Ms. MacArthur's purse and went through it. Among the items enclosed in the purse were condoms and a small bottle of perfume. Officer Grillo took the perfume bottle and emptied it over Ms. MacArthur's upper torso. Next, Respondent asked Ms. MacArthur how she used the condoms. While the police officers observed, Ms. MacArthur opened the condom package, placed the condom in her mouth and began a sucking action. After a few seconds, she threw the condom down on the ground. While Officer Grillo spoke with Ms. MacArthur, the Respondent went to the police car and retrieved his flashlight. Officer Grillo asked Ms. MacArthur if she had underwear on. When she replied she did not, Respondent asked her if they (the officers) could see. Ms. MacArthur pulled her pants down to reveal her naked backside. When he returned from the car with the light, Respondent attempted to illuminate Ms. MacArthur's lower body but was unable to do so since the batteries in the flashlight failed. Officer Grillo then went to the police car and obtained a surgical glove which he placed on his hand. With Respondent present, Officer Grillo placed his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas. Respondent observed Officer Grillo rub his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas and saw her fidget at one point. Officer Grillo inserted his finger into Ms. MacArthur's vagina and rectum without her consent. The touching that is described in paragraph 10 was not done to effect a cavity search of someone under arrest nor was it performed for a bona fide medical purpose. Following the acts described above, the Respondent and Officer Grillo placed the Respondent into the police car and transported her back to the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. MacArthur then located an undercover police officer and disclosed the activities which had taken place. As part of the follow up investigation performed by the police, the perfume bottle and condom were retrieved from the site. Also in connection with the investigation of the allegation, an investigator went to the location of Respondent's day job and asked him to return to the police station for questioning. Respondent drove himself to the sexual battery office and spoke with Detective Mahon and Sgt. Sparrow. Prior to giving a statement, Respondent was advised of his rights by the officers. Respondent executed a written Miranda warning form. Respondent then gave an account of the activities which had occurred with Ms. MacArthur and Officer Grillo. This statement was given at approximately 3:21 p.m., September 18, 1988. Respondent gave a second statement to an assistant state attorney and Detective Mahon at approximately 5:41 p.m., September 18, 1988. That statement was made under oath and mirrored the one previously given by him. While Respondent did not see penetration of Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas by Officer Grillo's hand, it is undisputed that he observed the gloved hand being placed in those specific areas as described above. The police did not coerce Respondent into making the statements given on September 18, 1988. Respondent was not placed under arrest, was not charged with a criminal offense, and has not been prosecuted for any alleged wrongdoing. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is likely to be prosecuted for any alleged criminal act. In contrast, Officer Grillo was charged with criminal offenses related to the incident with Ms. MacArthur. Subsequent to the incident described above, Respondent resigned his employment with the City of Miami Police Department. Prior to that action, he had received several commendations for specific acts of excellent service, and had obtained satisfactory or very good performance evaluations for his work as a police officer. All acts which gave rise to the allegations of this case occurred during Respondent's rookie year as a police officer. Prior to being asked to return to the police station to give a statement regarding the allegations of this case, Respondent had not disclosed the acts perpetrated by Officer Grillo to another police officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0919 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are accepted; the balance is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the Respondent and his partner intimidated the victim, Linda MacArthur and that she was fearful of being arrested. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The victim complied with Respondent's directive to enter the police vehicle. Paragraphs 8 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Respondent asked the victim as to how she normally used the condom; it is not accepted that he made her suck it. See finding of fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent did, however, make the request described at a later time (prior to releasing the victim). The second sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The balance of that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 22 is accepted; the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's account (that he did not touch the victim) is accepted. If the flashlight was pressed against the victim, the inference that Officer Grillo did that also is more credible. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See, however, finding of fact paragraphs 10 and 17. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 32 are accepted. Paragraphs 33 through 36 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. Respondent submitted a written closing argument. Copies to: Jeffrey Long, Director 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 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rashad El-Amin Attorney at Law 4300 S.W. 92 Davie, Florida 33328
The Issue This case was presented upon an administrative complaint filed by the Florida State Board of Nursing against Shirley A. White Cocks, R.N. alleging that she was guilty of unprofessional conduct and was believed by the Board to be in such poor physical or mental health that an undue risk existed that she could cause harm to other persons contrary to the provisions of Section 464.21(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes. Prior to commencing hearing the parties stipulated that prior to July, 1977, Ms. Cocks' performance of her professional duties was acceptable. Between September, 1977 and November, 1977, Ms. Cocks was unable to perform her professional duties in a professional manner as outlined in subparagraphs a - i of paragraph one of the administrative complaint. Ms. Cocks' inability to perform these duties is substantiated by the testimony contained in the four depositions which were admitted into evidence. The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence off the hospital discharge summaries dated July 18 - 22, 1977; July 24 - 27, 1977; and August 3 - 17, 1977 and to the fact that after August 17th and treatment with lithium carbonate she was discharged as being in an improved state. The primary issue presented is whether Ms. Cocks was responsible for her failure to perform her duties in a professional manner and whether at this time her physical and mental health are such that an undue risk is created that she would cause harm to another person.
Findings Of Fact Shirley Cocks is a registered nurse holding license no. 16354-4 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Shirley Cocks was employed at Hubert Rutland Hospital until November, 1977. Prior to July, 1977, Cocks' professional conduct as a nurse was acceptable or better. Persons familiar with her professional conduct described her as a meticulous nurse who performed her duties in a better than average manner. July, 1977, Cocks suffered an attack of unknown origin that caused her to have blackout spells (Syncope). Cocks was hospitalized in July and August at Hubert Rutland Hospital during which time a complete physical work up was done. No physical abnormalities were discovered which would contribute to the blackout spells which Cocks suffered. During this period, Cocks was observed to have radical shifts in her moods. Because of her condition was tentatively diagnosed by her neurologist as manic depressive illness. She was prescribed lithium carbonate by her neurologist although a psychiatric work up had never been done on her. See discharge summaries. Subsequent to her last hospitalization and while on lithium carbonate maintenance Cocks returned to work at Hubert Rutland Hospital. It was at this time that her coworkers observed that she was unable to perform her nursing duties in a professional manner and was unable to do the tasks required of her as enumerated A in subparagraphs A - I of paragraph one of the complaint. During this period she was observed by the other R.N.s with whom she worked to have slurred speech, disjointed speech, stumbling gait, loss of muscular coordination, and loss of memory. According to Dio Regner, R.N. who was her direct supervisor, Cocks was mentally and physically incompetent after her discharge from the hospital on August 17, 1977. See Regner deposition, page All of the nurses with whom she had worked indicated that Cocks' problems began after she had been hospitalized. Cocks was discharged from her employment at Hubert Rutland Hospital on November 11, 1977. After her discharge from Hubert Rutland Hospital she was employed at Oak Manor Nursing Center. At this time, she discontinued lithium carbonate maintenance and has not taken the drug since that time. The director of nursing and nursing supervisor with whom she works at Oak Manor Nursing Home both testified that Cooks' performance was better than average and that she was able to perform her duties in a professional manner. This is the same observational analysis of Cocks' work made by the nurses who worked with her prior to her illness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing take no action on the administrative complaint against Shirley A. White Cocks. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael B. Steeves, Esquire 1249 Rogers Street, Suite 1 Clearwater, Florida 33516 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg. B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Shirley Ann Cocks As a Registered Nurse Case No. 78-777 12311 105th Street North License Number 86804-2 Largo, Florida 33540 /
The Issue Whether Petitioner (the School Board) has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the School Board employed Respondent as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional service contract and assigned her to teach at Mae M. Walters Elementary School. Respondent began her employment with the School Board in 1993. While on traffic detail on August 10, 2000, Officer Calicchio stopped a car with an expired tag. At the time pertinent to this proceeding the car, a convertible, had its top down. The driver, a male, and Respondent, the front seat passenger, were the only occupants of the car. After the car pulled off the road, Officer Calicchio parked his patrol car behind the stopped vehicle, approached the vehicle, and asked the driver for his license and registration. The driver responded that he did not have his driver's license on his person and gave his name and date of birth to Officer Calicchio. Respondent informed Officer Calicchio that the vehicle belonged to her and gave him her license and the car's registration. Officer Calicchio returned to his patrol car to verify the information that had been given to him and to determine whether the driver had a valid license. While he was doing that, Officer Gomez appeared at the scene as backup for Officer Calicchio. Officer Gomez observed marijuana particles on the driver's shirt and in the car. After Officer Gomez related his observations to Officer Calicchio, the two officers took the driver into custody and placed him in the backseat of Officer Calicchio's patrol car. Officer Calicchio returned to the vehicle and observed marijuana particles in the vehicle. Officer Calicchio asked Respondent if he could search the vehicle. She consented and got out of the vehicle. After he completed his search, Officer Calicchio asked Respondent if he could search the large purse she was carrying. She consented and began pulling objects out of the purse and placing them on the hood of Officer Calicchio's patrol car. When Respondent slid her purse back up on her arm, Officer Calicchio asked if her purse was empty. Respondent answered in the affirmative. Officer Calicchio asked if he could look inside her purse. Respondent responded by leaning the purse towards him so he could look inside. Officer Calicchio observed two yellow envelopes in the bottom of the purse. Respondent consented to Officer Calicchio retrieving the two envelopes and opening them. The envelopes contained a green, leafy substance. When Officer Calicchio showed Respondent the contents of the envelope and asked what the substance was, Respondent fled on foot. Officer Calicchio, immediately followed by Officer Gomez, pursued Respondent. As she was fleeing, both officers observed Respondent reach into the front of her pants and pull out a plastic bag. As she was attempting to throw the bag into some bushes, Respondent slipped and fell to the ground. The plastic bag fell to the ground, landing next to the Respondent. The two officers recovered the bag and took Respondent into custody. The plastic bag contained a white-yellowish substance that Officer Calicchio field-tested using a Valtox field test. The substance tested positive for cocaine. Officer Calicchio also performed a field test on the green, leafy substance that was taken from the envelopes in Respondent's purse. The substance tested positive for cannabis. Subsequent tests by John Gall, a forensic chemist employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Officer, confirmed that the substance in the plastic bag was cocaine. The cocaine taken from the plastic bag weighed 35.2 grams. Respondent's conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring both Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Respondent's misconduct impaired her service in the community. On December 13, 2000, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent's employment and begin proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that upholds the suspension of Respondent's employment and terminates her professional service contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of August, 2001.
