The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since April 30, 1982, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds certificate number 08-82-002- 01. Respondent is now, and has been since early 1982, employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as the "FHP"). He currently holds the rank of sergeant, a rank he has held since 1986, with the exception of a brief period of time in 1990 when he served as a lieutenant. As a sergeant, Respondent is responsible, on a regular basis, for the direct supervision of eight troopers. There are occasions, however, when as many as 40 troopers are under his supervision. During the time that he has been with the FHP, Respondent has received numerous commendations and his overall work performance has been rated as either satisfactory or above. Only twice during the period of his employment has he been disciplined- - in 1983, for the negligent operation of his FHP vehicle, for which he received a written reprimand, and, more recently, for the incidents which gave rise to the issuance of the instant Amended Administrative Complaint. These incidents all occurred during the time Respondent held the rank of lieutenant. Respondent was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the investigative section of the FHP's Troop "E" in Miami on or about February 1, 1990. His duties included working out of uniform (in civilian clothes) investigating driver's license fraud. Among the other investigative lieutenants assigned to Troop "E" with whom Respondent worked were Lieutenants Jimmy Hobbie, Paul Sharpe and Kenneth Glass. Respondent shared an office with Lieutenant Hobbie. They each had their own desk. Lieutenants Sharpe and Glass occupied other nearby offices. Respondent enjoyed a congenial, professional relationship with his fellow investigative lieutenants. At no time did he ever have an exchange of angry or threatening words with them. On at least three separate occasions between February 19, 1990 and April 15, 1990, while in his office and in the presence of Lieutenants Hobbie and Sharpe, with whom, at the time, he was engaged in casual, light conversation injected with attempts at humor, Respondent removed his .38 caliber FHP-issued service revolver from his holster, placed it near the side of his head, pulled the hammer partially back, and, without firing any shots, returned the revolver to his holster. On none of these occasions did Respondent intend to harm or threaten anyone. He was simply trying to be funny. Neither Hobbie nor Sharpe, however, were amused by Respondent's careless and potentially dangerous display of his firearm. 1/ To the contrary, they were troubled by Respondent's actions, but they did not express their concerns to Respondent. On March 30, 1990, Respondent displayed a firearm in arresting an individual named Mark Barken for driver's license fraud. Prior to locating and arresting Barken, Respondent had been told by Barken's brother that Barken was a heroin addict and that Barken had recently threatened the brother with a shotgun and told the brother that he was going to kill him and his wife. Based upon the information he had been provided by the brother, Respondent considered Barken to be an unstable, dangerous and violent individual. Therefore, when he received a tip that Barken was at a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility in Perrine, he asked Lieutenant Hobbie to accompany him to the facility to assist in arresting Barken. Hobbie agreed to provide such backup support. Respondent and Lieutenant Hobbie drove to Perrine and waited together outside the facility for Barken to leave. After a while, Respondent left the surveillance area for brief moment. When he returned, Hobbie advised him that Barken, or at least someone who looked like Barken, had just left the facility. Respondent thereupon got into his FHP vehicle and drove off in the direction Hobbie had told him Barken was headed. Hobbie remained behind in the surveillance area. Shortly thereafter Respondent spotted Barken, who was with a companion. As Respondent approached the two, they ran across the street into a parking lot. Respondent followed them. As he pulled into the lot, he identified himself as a law enforcement officer 2/ and ordered Barken and his companion to stop, turn around and face him with their hands up. The pair stopped, but they did not comply with Respondent's other directives, even after these directives had been given several times. Believing that it would be prudent to do so, Respondent took a shotgun with him as he exited the vehicle and initially held it in a port-arms position in an effort to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, Respondent did gain control of the situation. When Lieutenant Hobbie arrived on the scene, Barken and his companion were laying face down on the pavement and Respondent was pointing a shotgun in their direction. 3/ Following Hobbie's arrival, Respondent placed the shotgun back in his vehicle and Barken and his companion were taken into custody. On or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, while seated at his desk in the office he shared with Lieutenant Hobbie, Respondent jokingly pointed his revolver out the open doorway of the office and in the direction of a reception area. As he did so, he commented to Hobbie, who was in the office with him, "Wonder what he would do if he would, you know, look up and see me pointing this gun at him." From where he was situated, Hobbie was unable to see the person to whom Respondent was referring. After making this comment, Respondent put the gun back in his holster. At around lunchtime, on or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, Respondent walked into Lieutenant Sharpe's office and the two began to engage in a friendly conversation. Their discussion centered upon their plans for lunch. During the conversation, Respondent was standing immediately in front of the desk at which Sharpe was seated. At some point in their discussion, Respondent decided that he needed to tuck his shirt in his pants. Before loosening his pants, he unholstered his service revolver and laid the revolver on Sharpe's desk. As Respondent placed the revolver on the desk, he carelessly pointed the barrel of the gun in Sharpe's direction and pulled the hammer partially back. Sharpe reacted by quickly changing his position to avoid being in the line of fire in the event the revolver discharged. Respondent saw Sharpe's reaction. He immediately removed the revolver from the desk and placed it back in his holster without bothering to tuck in his shirt. Although concerned about this incident, Lieutenant Sharpe did not discuss his concerns with Respondent; 4/ however, he did report the incident shortly after it had occurred to Randy Snow, who was his, as well as Respondent's, immediate supervisor. 5/ On April 25, 1990, Respondent and Lieutenants Hobbie, Sharpe and Glass were standing in close proximity to one another in the secretarial area of Troop "E" headquarters and engaged in informal and friendly conversation when Respondent, in response to a remark make by Hobbie and in an effort to be humorous, removed his service revolver from his holster, pointed it at Hobbie's head and pulled the hammer partially back. Hobbie turned his head to the side and ducked. Glass threw his hands up and exclaimed, "That's loaded," in response to which Respondent stated, "I know it is." Respondent then put the revolver back in his holster. At the time of this April 25, 1990, incident, an internal investigation of Respondent's conduct was already underway. During the course of the investigation, Respondent, who had not yet completed his probationary period as a lieutenant, was returned to the rank of sergeant and placed on "administrative duty." Following the conclusion of the investigation, Respondent was dismissed by the FHP on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The FHP subsequently determined that it did not have just cause to dismiss Respondent for fitness deficiencies. Accordingly, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Respondent, it rescinded Respondent's dismissal and instead suspended Respondent for ten days without pay for the improper display of a weapon. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, Respondent successfully participated in the FHP's Employee Assistance Program. He also took a firearms retraining course, which he also successfully completed. Since Respondent's return to work, his overall work performance has been rated as exceeding performance standards and he has received a letter of commendation from his supervisor. There have not been any reoccurrences of the improper conduct for which he was suspended. Apparently, he has mended his ways. He is today considered to be an effective, hard working and honest law enforcement officer who is an asset to the FHP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, by virtue of his having engaged in the conduct described in Findings of Fact 10, 18, 19 and 21 of this Recommended Order, and (2) issuing him a written reprimand and placing him on probation for a period of two years, during which time he shall be required to undergo firearms training and meet any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of April, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The following facts are stipulated by the parties and are incorporated herein: The Respondent has been the clerk of court for Collier County since June of 1986. The Respondent was the clerk of court at all times material to this complaint. In July of 1990, the Respondent's wife was issued a citation for having glass bottles on the beach, a violation of municipal ordinance No. 16.30, City of Naples. On August 21, 1990, upon failure to timely pay the fine for the violation of the above-described ordinance or to appear in court on this date, an arrest warrant for Theresa Giles was issued. On August 30, 1990, on or about 4:30 p.m., police officers arrived at the Respondent's residence to arrest Ms. Giles for her failure to appear or to pay fine. The officers allowed Ms. Giles to make a telephone call to her husband at the clerk's office. The Respondent went to one of his deputy clerks, Lorraine Stoll and discussed the situation with her. As a result, Ms. Stoll called the officers at the Respondent's home and informed them that the bench warrant for Ms. Giles was recalled. Ms. Giles was not taken into custody as a result of Ms. Stoll's action. These facts are derived from the evidence presented, weighed and credited: Respondent, James Giles was the Collier County finance director, performing the pre-audit function for the county, when he was appointed county clerk to finish a two year term in 1986. He was then elected to a four year term ending in January 1993, and was not reelected. His prior employment experience was as a private certified public accountant, an employee of St. Johns County, and an auditor for the State of Florida. On August 30, 1990, when Theresa Giles called her husband, she was very upset. He had promised to pay the fine, but had forgotten. She was home alone with her young child and her elderly mother when the deputies came to serve the warrant and arrest her. The ticket, or "Notice to Appear" issued to Ms. Giles for her infraction plainly provides notice that if the fine is not paid or the person fails to appear in court at the appointed time, an arrest warrant shall be issued. (Advocate Exhibit No. 2) James Giles immediately called his misdemeanor division and Kathleen Heck answered the phone. After he briefly explained the situation, she went to find the supervisor, Lorraine Stoll. As the two women were at Ms. Stoll's desk, bringing Ms. Giles' case up on the computer, Mr. Giles appeared in person. This was a very unusual situation because the clerk rarely came back to the misdemeanor office. He was Lorraine Stoll's immediate supervisor. He asked if there was anything that could be done and Ms. Stoll responded that the warrant could be recalled. Before she could explain any further, he handed her a paper with his home phone and asked her to make the call. Ms. Giles answered the phone and put the deputy on; Ms. Stoll told him the warrant was recalled, and Ms. Giles was not arrested. Ms. Stoll then told Mr. Giles that the fine and court costs had to be paid. He said the whole thing was ridiculous, that he could not believe a warrant could be issued for such a minor offense. By this time it was after 5:00 p.m. and the cashier's office was closed. Giles paid the $36.50 fine the next day and paid the $100.00 court costs on September 13, some two weeks later. (Respondent's exhibits nos. 1 and 2). James Giles admits being upset at the time that the phone call was made, but was trying to calm down because he knew Lorraine Stoll to be excitable. He was flabbergasted that someone could be arrested for having bottles on the beach. He denies that he pressured Ms. Stoll, but claims he was trying to be rational and get sound advice. He wanted her to make the call because he felt it would "look bad" if he did. James Giles did not raise his voice but both Ms. Stoll and Ms. Heck perceived he was upset and in a pressure situation. Ms. Stoll had never been involved in a circumstance where the warrant was recalled while the deputies were getting ready to make an arrest. She has worked in the misdemeanor section of the clerk's office for eleven and a half years, as deputy clerk. No ordinary citizen could have received the advantage that the clerk and his wife received. Judge Ellis, a Collier County judge, has a written policy providing that a bench warrant may be set aside after payment of costs and fine. Another county judge, Judge Trettis, requires that his office or the State's Attorney be called, and does not have a written policy. Ms. Stoll does not have the authority to recall a warrant without following the proper procedure. This situation was out of the ordinary. She made the telephone call because her boss told her to, and their main concern was that the warrant needed to be recalled so Ms. Giles would not go to jail. On the other hand, Ms. Stoll did not tell Mr. Giles that he was pressuring her, nor did she have the opportunity to tell him the proper procedure before making the telephone call. James Giles' explanation that he was simply seeking advice of his staff and then acting on it without wrongful intent is disingenuous. Whatever his actual knowledge of proper procedures for recalling a warrant, he knew or should have known that what he was doing was not an opportunity available to other citizens. His experience in the clerk's office and in prior public service should have clued him that no one else could simply get a deputy clerk to intercept an arrest with a telephone call.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order finding that James Giles violated Section 112.313(6), F.S., and recommending a civil penalty of $250.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4942EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Advocate's Proposed Findings 1. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 8.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. A.-E. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 8 and 12. Rejected as the sequence suggested is contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as misleading. The evidence shows the process was incorrect and both staff knew it was incorrect. The clerk was informed about the correct procedure after the phone call. The procedure is set out in paragraph 13. The evidence is not clear that the fine and costs could not have been paid the same day. By the time Mr. Giles finished complaining, it was after 5:00. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, considering the totality of Ms. Stoll's testimony as well as Ms. Heck's. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. 3. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. More specifically, this proposed finding suggests that the culpability was Ms. Stoll's rather than Respondent's. That suggestion is supported only by Ms. Stoll's timid admissions that she should not have made the phone call without having received the payment from her boss. Ms. Stoll's acceptance of blame does not relieve the Respondent of his responsibility. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig B. Willis Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Raymond Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff 849 7th Avenue, South - Suite 200 Naples, Florida 33940-6715 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities abused its discretion when denying Petitioner’s request for exemption from being disqualified to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact Disqualifying Offenses As noted above, the Department of Children and Families, by correspondence dated July 5, 2018, informed Petitioner that his background check revealed two disqualifying offenses. The first offense is described by the Department as “04/25/2014 PINELLAS PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, LARCENY,” and the second is described as “08/30/2005 ST. PETERSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY DOM-VIOL.” As an initial matter, the August 2005 offense does not disqualify Petitioner from working in a position of special trust. Specifically, on August 30, 2005, Petitioner was arrested, and charged with misdemeanor battery in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes (2005), which is a disqualifying offense. Petitioner’s arrest occurred as a result of a physical altercation with his brother, who was a minor when the alleged offense occurred. According to the case summary sheet (Resp. Ex. 2, p. 99), on April 13, 2006, the charge was reduced to the “lesser included misdemeanor [of] disorderly conduct,” to which Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere. On or about May 17, 2006, Petitioner was “adjudicated guilty” of disorderly conduct in violation of section 509.143, Florida Statutes (2005). A violation of section 509.143 is not a disqualifying offense under any of the controlling statutes. On April 25, 2014, Petitioner was arrested and charged with violating section 812.014(2)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2013). This section provides, in part, that “[i]t is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree … if the property stolen is … [v]alued at $300 or more, but less than $5,000.” On May 28, 2014, Petitioner was found guilty of the offense as charged (adjudication of guilty withheld), and ordered to serve 18 months of probation which included restitution of $75.00 to the victim. According to Petitioner, this offense occurred when he stole cellphones from a Metro PCS store. Non-disqualifying Offenses On August 20, 2018, Petitioner was cited for multiple traffic violations. According to the arrest affidavit, the following events occurred: A stop was initiated on the Defendant’s vehicle for failure to stop at a steady red signal. Upon initiating a stop utilizing emergency lights and sirens, the defendant failed to stop for the emergency vehicle. He continued 3 blocks to the Choice gas station located at 3401 5th Ave., S. Upon making contact, Defendant was identified by FL DL and confirmed via David as being suspended on 8/13/2018 with notice provided on 8/9/2018 for failure to pay a traffic penalty. David also confirmed 4 prior DWLS/R convictions and previously listed as a habitual traffic offender. Petitioner was cited for felony “driving while license suspended or revoked, fleeing and eluding police officer, [and] possession of marijuana.” On October 9, 2018, the State Attorney administratively closed the “marijuana and fleeing” charges, and on October 11, 2018, reduced the felony “driving while license suspended or revoked” charge to a misdemeanor. On November 14, 2018, the Court (Judge Dittmer) accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea, and adjudicated him guilty of the misdemeanor offense of “driving while license suspended or revoked.” See Resp. Ex. 2, p. 253 and 255. While the charges referenced in the previous paragraph were pending, Petitioner, on October 6, 2018, was stopped by the police, and again cited for the felony offense of “driving while license suspended or revoked.” Unlike before, there was no reduction in this charge, and on November 14, 2018, Petitioner entered a plea to the charged offense, and was adjudicated guilty (Judge Quesada) of the third-degree felony of “Driving While License Revoked (Felony-Habitual).” See Resp. Ex. 2, p. 260-265. General Background Information Petitioner is enrolled as a student, and is working towards earning his associate of arts degree. Petitioner has a sporadic work history, and during the last few years has subsisted primarily on student loans. Petitioner testified that he regularly attends church. He is not involved in any community activities, nor has he received any special recognition or awards since his conviction for the disqualifying offense. From approximately October 2016 through June 2020, Petitioner worked at several institutional facilities that offer services to vulnerable adults. During this timeframe, Petitioner was investigated five times for possible mistreatment of vulnerable individuals, with each investigation dismissed as unsubstantiated.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford Pennywell Apartment B3 5295 59th Circle West Kenneth City, Florida 33709 Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons With Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Radhika Puri, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Danielle Thompson Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons With Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude or an immoral conduct because the State Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor charge of possession of controlled substance, and Respondent entered and completed a pre-trial intervention program and the State Attorney nolle prosequi the criminal charge. The Board of Education is now prosecuting Respondent for possession of a controlled substance. In a possession of controlled substance charge, there shall be proof of two distinct elements. The Board of Education must prove that: (1) Respondent had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance, and (2) Respondent had knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence in evidence deemed relevant and material, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: At all times material and pertinent hereto, Respondent, David J. Suldo, a state-certified teacher, had worked 21 years with the Osceola County School District and had been appointed Director and Coordinator of Human Relations Issues. Respondent was born and reared in Osceola County and, after attending college, returned to enter the school system. He and his wife own a five-acre homestead in Osceola County where they, along with their family, enjoyed a long and friendly relationship with many of his students and their parents in the small community of Sebring, Florida. He is currently employed by the Orange County School Board. Respondent holds a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 378761, covering the areas of Administration/Supervision and Psychology, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Currently, Respondent is employed as Dean of Sixth Grade at Westgate Middle School in the Orange County School District. Before the issue raised by the allegation in the case at bar, Respondent has never had a complaint filed against him. On the weekend of January 30, 1998, Respondent and his wife drove away in their jointly registered family car from a Seven-Eleven parking lot, in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida, and were stopped by Officer, Donald Minervino, for an expired tag. In response to the Officer's request to produce his diver's license, Respondent produced his Director of Student Services Osceola County School District identification card,1 explaining that he lost his driver's license a few days prior. Officer Minervino requested that Respondent and his wife exit the vehicle, which they did, and he requested permission to search the vehicle, which was granted. During his search, Officer Minervino found a small baggie containing a suspected controlled substance in the console of the vehicle. Officer Minervino found a small amount of illicit substance in a plastic bag and a broken pipe. Also found in the console was a St. Cloud High School, 1995-96, I.D. card of Scott Suldo, a tenth grader, who is Respondent's son. During his interrogation, Officer Minervino asked Respondent if he would like to make a statement regarding the suspected illicit substance in the baggie and the broken pipe. Respondent answered "NO," and made no statements regarding knowledge of the presence of the illicit substance or knowledge of the nature of the illicit substance recovered from the console of the family car. Officer Minervino observed two beer bottles, one of which was open, in the vehicle. Because of this traffic stop, vehicle search, interrogation of vehicle occupants, and observation of their movements and speech patterns, Officer Minervino concluded neither was intoxicated and no roadside sobriety tests were taken. The Officer issued Respondent two citations: (1) warning citation for the expired tag, and citation for having an open container (beer bottles) in the vehicle.2 Officer Minervino did not arrest Respondent on a charge of possession, but filed an Affidavit Prosecution Summary (APS) with the State Attorney's Office regarding the baggie of illicit substance and the broken pipe,3 in accord with the Osceola County Sheriff's Department's policy. On Monday following the January 30, 1998, traffic stop incident, Respondent met with Dr. Thomas L. McCarley, superintendent of the Osceola County School District, and they mulled over and discussed the situation. Dr. Thomas L. McCarley offered Respondent the opportunity to transfer to another school district pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation, specifically, the potential outcome regarding the content of the plastic bag, i.e. whether the State Attorney would or would not file criminal charges. Having considered his career opportunities, his family, and his lifetime residency in Sebring, Florida, Respondent opted to retire from the Osceola County School District and did so on or before February 13, 1998.4 Sebring, Florida, is a small community and community members of long standing know each other well. The community knew of Respondent's long association with and his position within the school system; they knew also of his traffic stop by the local police and the police finding illicit materials in Respondent's family car. The Sebring local newspaper ran, almost daily, updates and recounts of this incident over an extensive period. Respondent is of the opinion that the prolonged newspaper publicity created public pressure on the State Attorney's Office, who, months after the incident, filed misdemeanor criminal charges against Respondent. At some undetermined time before September 1998, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, Florida, filed a two-count misdemeanor criminal charge of Possession of Cannabis and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia against Respondent. On or about September 1, 1998, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, Florida, in open court filed nolle prosequi5 of the two-count misdemeanor criminal affidavit. Listed as "Exculpatory information received" was checked the statement: "Defendant completed pre- trial diversion program." Subsequent to September 1, 1998, the Orange County Superintendent of Public Schools asked Respondent to apply for employment with the Orange County School Board because there existed a need for someone with Respondent's particular expertise and training in "student issues." After completion of the Orange County School Board's application form, Respondent was interviewed by the Orange County School Board. During his interview, Respondent informed the Orange County School Board of the circumstances, from the initial traffic stop, retiring from Osceola County School District, the misdemeanor criminal charges filed against him, his retaining counsel, his entering and completing the pre-trial program, and his having taken several independent and successful drug tests since the incident to demonstrate that he was not a user of drugs. On August 5, 2002, the Orange County School Board offered Respondent a 196-day, 2000-2003 school year, professional Instructional Personnel contract of employment with the Orange County School System. Respondent accepted the Orange County School Board's offer and formally executed his employment contract on December 5, 2000. Mrs. Joy Suldo, wife of Respondent, took the vehicle in question to Circuit City for a stereo upgrade and repair then to Addison's Body Shop for minor repair work picking up the care on or about January 27, 1998. From the body shop, she took the car to the upholstery shop for a day and a one-half day. At these several service location, employees had access to the vehicle. Mrs. Suldo did not open or check the console when she returned the car home. Respondent's son also had access to the vehicle, along with his friend and fellow band members. Respondent recalled seeing several of them sitting together in the car listening to the enclosed sound car stereo. His son and his friends had unlimited access to the vehicle. Multiple accesses to the vehicle by persons other then Mr. Suldo created, not an inference of solo possession by Mr. Suldo, but rather created the burden of upon Petitioner to reinforce the inference of constructive possession by Mr. Suldo. There was no evidence was presented by Petitioner from which circumstantial constructive possession by Respondent could in inferred. At all times material to the case at bar, there was no teacher's labor union contract between teachers and the Osceola County School Board. Petitioner has offered no evidence to prove the allegation contained in its letter dated October 25, 2001, to wit: possession of a controlled substance.6 No evidence was offered to prove that Respondent knew of the illicit nature of the substance or that Respondent knew of the presence (in the vehicle) of the illicit substance. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to prove Respondent actually possessed or constructively possessed a controlled substance. Petitioner's substantial evidence failed to demonstrate that from the circumstances of this incident that Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of January, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a law enforcement officer, Certificate Number 02-22949. That certificate is currently inactive. Respondent was employed as a deputy sheriff with the Polk County Sheriff's Department in January of 1978. Respondent resigned this position on or about October 22, 1982. On or about September 9, 1982, Respondent was involved in the apprehension and arrest of an individual named James Pitts. A Winter Haven police officer, Dennis Warren, actually effected the arrest of the above suspect on or about September 9, 1982. During the arrest, Pitts resisted Officer Warren and in so doing, Officer Warren sustained injuries to his right hand. The area in which the struggle occurred consisted of loose dirt and gravel. Immediately after the arrest, Officer Warren's uniform was disheveled, dirty and ripped. The knuckles on his right hand were bleeding. Immediately after the arrest, Respondent's uniform was clean, not disheveled and no dirt was present. The dirt and gravel at the scene of the arrest were the type that would adhere to a uniform. After Officer Warren arrested the suspect, Respondent was unable or unwilling to walk the suspect to the police car. Another officer (Bill Stone), walked the suspect to the police car and placed the suspect in the vehicle. Respondent was present during the arrest of James Pitts and observed Officer Warren struggling with said individual. Officer Warren requested Respondent's assistance in the arrest but Respondent failed to provide such assistance. During Respondent's tenure as a deputy sheriff, he failed to assist other officers on several occasions during violent confrontations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of January, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as an optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DO 003219. On March 7, 1986, Respondent was found guilty, by verdict of a jury, of the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct. He was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. As conditions of his probation, he was ordered to seek counseling, to undergo drug evaluation, and to avoid contact with the victim. On July 20, 1987, Respondent filed an application with the Florida Board of Real Estate to sit for an examination that he was required to pass to become licensed as a real estate professional in Florida. Respondent responded "yes" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "no" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "no". On January 6, 1988, Respondent filed an application with the Petitioner to sit for an examination that he was required to pass to become licensed as an optician in Florida. Respondent responded "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty regardless of adjudication - of a crime in any jurisdiction, or have you ever been a defendant in a military court-martial? (Do not include parking or speeding violations.) Based on his application of January 6, 1988, Respondent was permitted to sit for the examination, which was divided into parts. He failed one part of the examination, and he was not eligible for licensure as an optician until he passed the part he had failed. On July 6, 1988, Respondent filed an application with the Petitioner to retake the part of the examination that he had previously failed. Respondent again responded "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty regardless of adjudication - of a crime in any jurisdiction, or have you ever been a defendant in a military court-martial? (Do not include parking or speeding violations.) Based on his application of July 6, 1988, Respondent was permitted to retake the part of the examination for licensure as an optician that he had previously failed. Respondent passed that part of the examination and was subsequently licensed as an optician. Petitioner would have required additional information from Respondent had Respondent answered the subject question in the affirmative on either his application of January 6, 1988, or on his application of July 6, 1988. Respondent contends that he answered the question truthfully because the crime of disorderly conduct is no more serious than a traffic offense. Respondent also contends that he relied upon the advice of his attorney in responding to the question. Although Respondent and his attorney discussed having the conviction expunged, Respondent did not pursue expungement because of the costs involved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes Respondent's licensure as an optician, but that the order of revocation be without prejudice to his right to reapply for licensure. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 7th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 and 10 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The Respondent's post-hearing submittal was in the form of a handwritten letter filed April 23, 1991. The proposed findings contained therein are rejected as being contrary to the findings made, as being irrelevant to the proceeding, or as being argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Renee Alsbrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David A. Whelihan, Jr. 18456 Lost Lake Way Jupiter, Florida 33458 LouElla Cook Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Bennie M. O'Kelley submitted an application to the Division of Licensing, Department of State, for licensure as a Class F, Unarmed Guard. O'Kelley indicated on his application that he had never been arrested, although he had been arrested some 15 times, the last time having been for assault and battery in 1969. In 1969, O'Kelley served 90 days in the Dade County Stockade for assault and battery. O'Kelley introduced evidence that he had been licensed by the Department of State earlier as an Unarmed Guard and stated that he had revealed his misdemeanor arrests on that application. O'Kelley stated that he knew that he could not be licensed if he had been arrested for a felony and assumed that misdemeanors were not disqualifying, and that therefore he did not have to report his misdemeanor conviction and arrests on his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the fact that O'Kelley has had a clean record for the past ten years, the Hearing Officer would recommend that his application for a Class F, Unarmed Guard, license be granted; however, because of O'Kelley's admitted history of being arrested for fighting, the Hearing Officer recommends that favorable consideration not be given to O'Kelley's application for a Class G, Armed Guard, license. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bennie M. O'Kelley 4711 SW 38th Street Hollywood, Florida 33023
