The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), by unlawfully soliciting a woman to commit prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified correctional officer since 1990. He holds Correctional Certificate Number 53627. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was operating his motor vehicle in a light rain in the vicinity of 68th Avenue and 17th Street at approximately 8:45 p.m. He saw a young female standing alongside the road. Respondent stopped his car and rolled down the passenger side window. He asked the woman if she needed a ride. She replied, "Do I ride?" This response implied to Respondent that she would assume the superior position in any sexual activity. Respondent repeated his initial question, and the woman replied with the same answer. The woman was a police officer who was conducting a prostitution sting operation with other officers, who were not visible to Respondent. The woman did not testify, and the other officers did not hear the conversation that took place between the woman and Respondent, so the sole source of the conversation is Respondent, who testified at the hearing and gave a statement to investigators. The conversation as described in these findings of fact is derived entirely from Respondent. Respondent replied to the woman, "I got $20." The woman asked, "For what?" Respondent answered, "For a fuck." The woman asked Respondent would he give her a ride back to their current location, and Respondent assured her that he would. The woman then turned away, explaining to Respondent that she was getting her pocketbook, but actually signalling to her fellow officers to take down Respondent. Respondent had felt that something was wrong and had started to drive away, but the officers quickly apprehended him. Following his arrest, Respondent was charged with soliciting a prostitution. However, he completed a pretrial diversion program, and the State Attorney's Office dismissed the case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and revoking his correctional officer certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Laurie Beth Binder Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William Chennault Chennault Attorneys & Counsellors at Law Post Office Box 1097 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1097
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be given credit for certain answers provided on the State Officers Certification Examination (officers certification examination).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, James H. Hall, Jr., took the officers certification examination and, thereafter, challenged certain answers to questions on the examination. Specifically, challenged questions were numbered 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, 143, 203, and 211. At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to questions 143 and 211, leaving eight questions to be challenged. The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering officers certification examinations and establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).1 The officers certification examination is a multiple- choice examination with four answer choices for each question. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. The answer deemed to be correct is the best of the four answer choices. The content of all the questions on the officers certification examination are derived from the basic recruit curriculum and from objectives that come from a job task analysis. The objectives appear in the beginning of every lesson of the curriculum. The curriculum materials are available to all applicants who take the officers certification examination. All the questions on the officers certification examination have been validated and field tested. Question 40 was clear and unambiguous and asked applicants to identify immunizations required for law enforcement officers. The correct answer to the Question 40 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (c), based on his belief as to what communicable disease officers should and could be vaccinated against. The correct answer to Question 40 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 69 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner's reason for choosing (c) as the answer to Question 40 does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 49 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate knowledge and application of the phonetic alphabet used by the Federal Communications Commission and the United States military. The correct answer to Question 49 is (a). Petitioner selected answer (c), based on his belief that the response next to that choice "flowed, that it didn't have too many syllables in it." The correct answer to Question 49 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 89 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner's rationale for selecting answer (c) does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 63 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate their understanding of various mental disorders. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer (a). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer chosen by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 91 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 89 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to know what an officer should do when a suspect is shot. The correct answer is (b). Petitioner selected answer choice (c). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the same answer selected by Petitioner. Question 89 is statistically valid, and 90 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 112 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to demonstrate knowledge relative to parties at a traffic crash scene. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 115 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of the officers' duty regarding the Miranda warning. The correct answer choice is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 85 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 156 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the consent given by an adult needing assistance. The correct answer for Question 156 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 73 percent of all persons who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 203 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the officers' responsibility in domestic violence incidents. The correct answer for Question 203 is (c). Petitioner selected the answer choice (d). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the scoring on Questions 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, and 203 and dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of May, 2006.
The Issue Should the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) impose discipline on Respondent, in her capacity as a corrections officer for the alleged violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2005)?1
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Commission on November 20, 1997, and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 176344. On November 22, 2005, Investigator Sally Cole was a law enforcement officer with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) headquarted in Monticello, Florida. In her capacity as a law enforcement officer she had authority to serve arrest warrants. While Investigator Cole was in her office on the date at issue, the dispatcher for the Sheriff's Office called to tell Investigator Cole that there was a "lady in the lobby" of the office and jail complex related to the Sheriff's Office, who had an outstanding warrant pending against her. The woman referred to was Respondent, who was in Monticello, Florida to visit her husband, who was incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail. Investigator Cole went to obtain the warrant which had been issued from Gadsden County, Florida. When Investigator Cole confirmed the information concerning the warrant issued by Gadsden County for Respondent's arrest, Warrant Number 05-717CFA, referring to a felony, Investigator Cole went to find Respondent. Investigator Cole located Respondent who was leaving the lobby of the Sheriff's Office complex and walking to the parking lot. Investigator Cole approached Respondent in the parking lot and explained information concerning the warrant. When Investigator Cole approached the Respondent, she told the Respondent that she was Investigator Sally Cole. When Investigator Cole tried to explain the information concerning the Gadsden County warrant to Respondent, the Respondent in reply continued to say that "she had never gotten in any trouble." Investigator Cole told Respondent that the Respondent was under arrest in view of the warrant from Gadsden County. Respondent got into her car. Two other persons were in the Respondent's automobile. They were her children. The children were ages 12 and 15. Investigator Cole told the Respondent to get out of the car. Respondent refused. Respondent started to become belligerent. Eventually Respondent got out of the car. By that time the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had made contact with other law enforcement officers, deputies, working for that agency. This contact was made because of a concern that Respondent was not being cooperative with Investigator Cole. Those persons who were contacted were Investigator Christopher Smith and Corporal Gerald Knecht. After Respondent got out of her car, Investigator Cole took her by the elbow to guide her inside the complex to be booked under the warrant issued by Gadsden County. Respondent started screaming at the deputy "to get her hands off of her." At that point the other deputies were in attendance to assist Investigator Cole. Respondent was not cooperating and tried to pull away from Investigator Smith when he was assisting in the escort. Investigator Smith told Respondent to cooperate and stop resisting. His identity was established by the badge on his belt which would remind Respondent that he was a law enforcement officer. During the incident, with her car keys in her hand and the attempt by the deputies to control her hands, Respondent in jerking away cut Corporal Knecht, either with the keys or her fingernails. This caused a minor laceration to the deputy. By the time the Respondent was brought inside the complex, she was "kind of dropping her weight, not wanting to walk and flailing her arms." This is understood to mean that someone had to support Respondent's weight. In addition Respondent was swinging her arms around, not with the intent to strike anyone, but snatching them away. Respondent was very upset and belligerent; not wanting to cooperate. Once in the lobby to the Sheriff's Office, Respondent began to be more difficult by trying to sit down and impede the escort. As the corridor to the jail was approached, then Corporal Virgil Joyner of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office came to assist in controlling Respondent, in an effort to escort her to the area where she would be booked. Corporal Joyner had heard the commotion from where he was located in the booking area of the jail. Respondent was being very loud. He observed the struggle that the other deputies were having in trying to maintain control and advance Respondent into the jail portion of the Sheriff's Office. He got behind the Respondent and started pushing her in the direction of the jail portion of the Sheriff's Office. Finally, Respondent was placed in secure confinement in the jail part of the Sheriff's Office. Later when Investigator Cole went back to talk to Respondent, she apologized and said she was upset and again stated that she had never been in trouble and that she had not stolen anything. This refers to the nature of the arrest warrant from Gadsden County, which was in relation to allegations of theft. Because of the difficulties that the officers had experienced in trying to serve the warrant and book the Respondent, Investigator Cole charged the Respondent with resisting arrest with violence. That charge forms the basis for the present case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statute, suspending the Respondent's correctional officer certificate for a period of 20 days, to be followed by one year probation with appropriate conditions for successfully concluding the probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 21st day of August, 2007
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of introducing or possessing contraband on the grounds of a state correctional institution, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional officer on October 24, 1995. Respondent holds correctional certificate number 159550. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Bay Correctional Facility, a state correctional institution. During her employment, Respondent had contact with Zachary Richards, an inmate at Bay Correctional Facility. On August 23, 1996, Captain Ronnie Holland spoke to Inmate Richards regarding a complaint that Inmate Richards had made disrespectful remarks about an official. In order to avoid a disciplinary report for disrespecting the official, Inmate Richards gave Captain Holland a brown paper bag on which a personal letter had been written. Inmate Richards indicated that Respondent wrote the personal letter and gave it to him. Captain Holland gave the brown paper bag to Inspector Chris Hubbard along with his report. Inspector Hubbard interviewed Inmate Richards who claimed that he and Respondent had been writing letters to each other for some time. Inmate Richards signed a sworn affidavit in support of his claim that he received the letter written on the brown paper bag from Respondent. Inspector Hubbard interviewed Respondent who denied any knowledge concerning the letter on the brown paper bag. Inspector Hubbard obtained Respondent's known handwriting samples from the portion of the master control log which she maintained during her employment. He submitted these samples along with the brown paper bag to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory for comparison. Donald G. Pribbenow is a forensic document examiner employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the Pensacola Regional Crime Laboratory. He is an expert with 17 and 1/2 years of experience in comparing handwriting samples to determine their authorship. Mr. Pribbenow examined the writing on the brown paper bag and compared it to Respondent's known handwriting samples. Mr. Pribbenow determined that the person who wrote the submitted known writings was the same person who wrote the questioned writing on the brown paper bag. The result of Mr. Pribbenow's examination is persuasive evidence that Respondent wrote the letter to Inmate Richards on the brown paper bag. On September 16, 1996, Respondent was terminated from Bay Correctional Facility for being involved in an improper relationship.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period not to exceed two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lori DeFisher 4123 West 21st Street Panama City, Florida 32405
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Kutina McLeod, should have received credit for answers provided on the examination for the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers (the exam).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a correctional officer. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers. As such, it must administer the examinations used to assure competency for certification. The examination at issue in this proceeding is known as the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers. It is a multiple-choice test that is scored by marking the best of the proposed answers. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. As to this Petitioner, four questions were challenged that the Petitioner did not receive credit for on the exam. As to each challenged question, the Petitioner felt her answer should have received credit. All of the questions challenged by the Petitioner were taken almost verbatim from the exam's course materials. The Petitioner attended the course and was instructed as to each of the challenged matters. The instruction did not deviate from the language that later appeared on the exam. None of the challenged questions proved to be statistically invalid by virtue of the number of wrong answers provided to the question. In fact, as to one of the Petitioner's challenged questions, 88 percent of the persons tested responded accurately. Only 5 percent of the persons tested gave the answer that the Petitioner provided. The Petitioner's confusion as to the answers she provided was probably influenced by her experiences as an officer within a jail setting. The Petitioner provided answers based on the totality of her experience and not just the material covered in the instructional course. None of the Petitioner's answers, however, were more correct than those set forth by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kutina McLeod 309 Julia Street Key West, Florida 33040 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is, pursuant to a Pre-Hearing Stipulation and Contingent Settlement Agreement, whether a statement made by Respondent, Tarence Robinson, on April 13, 1999, was obtained freely and lawfully by law enforcement.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), is created within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by Section 943.11, Florida Statutes. The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the certification and revocation of certification of officers, instructors, and criminal justice training schools in Florida. Respondent, Tarence Robinson, has been certified as a correction officer in the State of Florida since November 15, 1991, having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 73013. On April 13, 1999, Lawrence Taddeo, a detective with the City of North Miami Police Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Police Department"), spoke with Mr. Robinson by telephone and asked him to meet with Detective Taddeo about allegations by Mr. Robinson's step-daughter that he had sexually battered her. Mr. Robinson agreed to Detective Taddeo's request and voluntarily went to the Police Department's offices where he met Detective Taddeo. Mr. Robinson arrived at about 11:00 a.m. Upon his arrival, Mr. Robinson was interrogated by Detective Taddeo and Scott Croye, another detective with the Police Department. Mr. Robinson was voluntarily interrogated. Before questioning Mr. Robinson, Detective Taddeo explained the nature of the investigation and advised Mr. Robinson of his "Miranda" rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Mr. Robinson indicated that he understood his rights, agreed to waive those rights, and signed a form titled "North Miami Police Department Advice of Constitutional Rights Before Interview" (hereinafter referred to as the "Miranda Rights Waiver Form"). The Miranda Rights Waiver Form includes the following warning and questions: BEFORE YOU ARE ASKED ANY QUESTIONS, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS. You have the right to remain silent. You need not talk to me or answer my questions if you do not wish to do so. . . . . Should you talk to me, anything you say can and will be introduced into evidence in court against you. . . . . If you want an attorney to represent you at this time or at any time during questioning, you are entitled to such counsel. . . . . If you cannot afford an attorney and so desire, one will be provided without charge. . . . . _ DO YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF YOU RIGHTS? . . . . ARE YOU WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME? . . . . After the each of the foregoing questions, Mr. Robinson checked "Yes" indicating that he understood his rights and that he was willing to proceed with the investigation without an attorney. Following the foregoing questions and under the statement "THIS STATEMENT IS SIGNED OF MY OWN FREE WILL WITHOUT ANY THREATS OR PROMISES HAVING BEEN MADE TO ME," Mr. Robinson placed his signature and the date, April 13, 1999. His signature was witnessed by Detectives Taddeo and Croye, who also signed and dated the Miranda Rights Waiver Form. Mr. Robinson, who holds a college degree, in fact understood his constitutional rights and knowingly waived them before giving his April 13, 1999, statement. After having been properly advised of the nature of the allegations against him and his constitutional rights, Mr. Robinson proceeded to freely, without promise, threat, or coercion, answer questions posed by Detectives Taddeo and Croye concerning the allegations that had been made by his step- daughter. The interrogation began at approximately 11:15 a.m. and continued until shortly after 1:00 p.m. At no time did Mr. Robinson indicate that he wanted to assert his constitutional rights to remain silent or to have an attorney present. A little after 1:00 p.m., Mr. Robinson agreed to give a tape recorded statement. Mr. Robinson was placed under oath at the commencement of the tape recorded statement. At no time during the recording of his statement did Mr. Robinson indicate that he wished to assert his constitutional rights to remain silent or to have an attorney present. At the end of Mr. Robinson's recorded statement, Mr. Robinson was placed under arrest by Detectives Taddeo and Croye pursuant to an arrest warrant. Mr. Robinson's April 13, 1999, statement is admissible in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, requiring that Tarence Robinson voluntarily relinquish his certification within 30 days of entry of the final order and provided, that should he fail to do so, his certificate be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76) should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Benvenuti is seeking eligibility for an equivalency of training exemption from basic recruit training. Mr. Benvenuti has approximately 18 years of experience in law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service. Mr. Benvenuti was employed as a firefighter in the State of Connecticut, with the City of New London, from January 1971 to July 1979. He was also employed as a police officer in the State of Connecticut, with the Town of Waterford, from June 1977 through December 1998, when he was not on shifts with the City of New London as a firefighter. Additionally, Mr. Benvenuti was the certified Fire Marshall for the City of New London and the Acting Deputy Fire Marshall for the Town of Waterford. On January 7, 1985, Mr. Benvenuti was certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida and became a law enforcement officer with the Oakland Park Public Safety Department in Oakland Park, Florida. He voluntarily left the Oakland Park Public Safety Department on August 20, 1987, to return to Connecticut. When Mr. Benvenuti returned to Connecticut in 1987, he was re-employed by the New London Fire Department. In 1989, because of a lower back injury, he retired. Mr. Benvenuti was subsequently licensed by the State of Florida as a private investigator. He worked as a private investigator from 1991 to 2001, with a company performing investigations and surveillance. During his tenure with the company, Mr. Benvenuti received training from the United States Customs Office and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and performed airport security in Costa Rica. Mr. Benvenuti is presently the general manager of a towing company in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Among other things, he has constant contact with law enforcement officers. Mr. Benvenuti has impressive letters of recommendation. The letters of recommendation include recommendations from the Chief of Police of the Waterford Police Department and of the Oakland Park Public Safety Department, and the Fire Chief of the City of New London. During the summer of 2003, Mr. Benvenuti decided to get re-certified, as a law enforcement officer in Florida, since he had a "love" for law enforcement and after becoming aware that a friend of his had returned to school in the spring of 2003 for re-certification. Mr. Benvenuti inquired about re- certification at Broward Community College (College). The College offers the Pre-Exam Qualification Course for the Equivalency Training exam. Mr. Benvenuti was informed by the College that the class offered in July 2003 was already full and that he had to wait until the next available class was offered, which was in September 2003. In August 2003, Mr. Benvenuti forwarded his information to the College to register for the class, together with the required registration fee. The class was scheduled for September 29 through October 21, 2003. Notification of his acceptance into the class was forwarded to Mr. Benvenuti on September 2, 2003, by the College. On August 23, 2003, Mr. Benvenuti filed a completed Equivalency of Training Form with the CJSTC. On the Equivalency of Training Form, he indicated, among other things, that he was seeking certification as a law enforcement officer; that he was an inactive Florida officer; and that his prior criminal justice employment was with the Oakland Park Police Department, as a law enforcement officer from January 17, 1985 to August 20, 1987. CJSTC reviewed Mr. Benvenuti's Equivalency Training Form. By letter dated August 25, 2003, CJSTC informed Mr. Benvenuti that, due to a recent change in the law for eligibility, which took effect July 11, 2003, his eight-year break in employment made him ineligible for equivalency training and that, therefore, his Equivalency Training Form was denied. The College was not aware of the change in the law until it was re-contacted by Mr. Benvenuti regarding the denial by CJSTC. Mr. Benvenuti's qualifications are not at issue in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order denying approval of Richard A. Benvenuti's Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 2nd day of February, 2004.
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether Petitioner’s challenges to questions on the state officer certification examination should be sustained, resulting in additional points being added to his score.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the state officer certification examination on March 26, 2014. No evidence was placed in the record with respect to his score on the examination. However, his petition indicates that he failed the examination by two questions, an allegation that Respondent does not appear to dispute. The parties stipulated that the validity of four, as opposed to six, questions are at issue in this proceeding. Questions for the Exam are written by in-house exam development staff, based upon the official training curriculum. The questions are then shared with an advisory team comprising approximately 20 members, who are full-time law enforcement officers in the State of Florida. The team members, who are considered to be subject matter experts, are selected through nominations from their respective agencies and their experience in law enforcement. The subject matter experts review the questions for content to ensure that they are valid for the curriculum that is required for law enforcement officers. Staff then conducts an internal review to ensure that the questions meet their formatting guidelines, and if a question passes successfully through all of those requirements, then the question is placed into a pilot or field-test rotation. Pilot questions are placed on examinations but are not included in an examinee’s score, which allows the Department to collect statistical data on the question to ensure that it is not only valid in terms of content, but that it is also psychometrically and statistically sound. Test questions are examined in accordance with standards established by the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education that outline the standards for test items. The questions used by Respondent comply with the applicable standards. To reduce the possibility for error with respect to the questions asked, an examination will include multiple questions concerning the same curriculum. The purpose of the law enforcement certification examination is to certify an examinee’s knowledge of the official training curriculum that has been established and approved by the Florida Criminal Justice and Training Commission. The Exam was linked directly to the curriculum. If there is a major change as a result of case law that would bring the validity of an item in the test bank into question, the question is removed. However, that rarely happens, because the examination is meant to cover basic principles as opposed to more advanced details related to law enforcement practices. In evaluating the validity of Petitioner’s challenged questions, the Department examined certain statistics related to each question. The first statistic deals with the mean difficulty value. The mean difficulty value reflects the percentage of examinees who have answered the question correctly for the life of the question to date. The focal difficulty value is the percentage of examinees who answered the question correctly during the administration of the examination that Petitioner is challenging. The mean point-biserial correlation is a quality control measure that correlates performance on a particular question to overall performance on the exam. A positive value indicates that the question is statistically sound. A negative value indicates that there may be a problem with the question. The next value examined is the focal point-biserial correlation, which is calculated using the examinees in the administration of the examination being challenged. Like the point-biserial correlation, the calculation should yield a positive number to indicate an acceptable question. Also examined is the number of students who have answered the question, and the number of students who chose the correct answer. The final value examined is the number of examinees who chose the same (incorrect) answer as the person challenging the examination. Petitioner challenged questions 59, 126, 179, and 185. With respect to question 59, the correct answer was “c.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The question, which will not be repeated verbatim here, involved the use of force and the concept of objective reasonableness. The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 59 was .83. The focal difficulty value was .79. Both the mean point-biserial correlation and the focal point-biserial correlation were .29. A total of 2,535 examinees had answered the question, and 2,109 answered it correctly. Question 59 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Question 126 involved what kind of treatment should be considered for gunshot wounds to the torso. The correct answer was “c.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 126 was .56. The focal difficulty value was .60. The mean point-biserial correlation was .23 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .20. A total of 2,542 examinees had answered the question, and 1,411 answered it correctly. Question 126 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Question 179 addressed field sobriety tests. The correct answer was “a.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 179 was .77. The focal difficulty value was also .77. The mean point-biserial correlation was .20 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .09. A total of 2,566 examinees had answered the question, and 1,967 answered it correctly. Question 179 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Finally, question 185 addressed proper traffic stops. The correct answer was “a.” Petitioner chose answer “d.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 185 was .90. The focal difficulty value was .84. The mean point-biserial correlation was .17 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .08. A total of 2,867 examinees had answered the question, and 2,574 answered it correctly. Question 185 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the questions challenged were unclear, ambiguous, or in any respect unfair or unreasonable. Neither has he established that he answered any of the challenged questions correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement enter a Final Order rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the scoring of questions 59, 126, 179, and 185, and dismiss the petition in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Greg Chapman 5870 Westmont Road Milton, Florida 32583 (eServed) Thomas Kirwin, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Richard L. Swearingen, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed)
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of June, 1990.
