The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b), 2/ by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) or (7); and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Correctional Certificate 92776 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections. Respondent married Ms. Minnie Williams on May 6, 1988, in Lake City, Florida. They had one child, Blake, in 1990. They separated in September, 1993, and were divorced in November, 1994. The court awarded custody of the child to Respondent. In 1988, Respondent was in the Navy, stationed aboard the USS Saratoga, and based in Virginia. After Respondent and Ms. Williams were married, Respondent returned to Virginia. Ms. Williams remained in Lake City for several months before moving to Virginia to live with Respondent. Approximately one year after the marriage, problems developed in the marriage. Ms. Williams did not assist in the daily needs of the household, was unable to stay in school, and was not able to keep a job. Respondent's efforts to solve the marital problems were unsuccessful. His attempts at counseling failed to improve communications between the couple. In late 1989, Respondent informed Ms. Williams that the marriage was not going to work. He told Ms. Williams that he thought they should divorce. Ms. Williams returned to her mother's home in Lake City. Respondent's ship was transferred to Mayport, Florida in 1990. Ms. Williams did not want a divorce and did not want to separate from Respondent. Sometime in 1990, Respondent left the Navy and obtained employment with the Department of Corrections. Between 1990 and 1993, the couple maintained the marriage in an effort to provide a home for their child. Whenever Respondent attempted to discuss divorce, it resulted in a heated argument. Ms. Williams frequently threatened to "ruin" Respondent. The Wrench On March 9, 1993, Respondent counseled a co-worker who was distraught over her husband's affair. Respondent learned that the woman with whom the husband was having an affair was Respondent's wife. Respondent went home to pack his clothes and leave home. An argument ensued regarding Ms. William's infidelity. Respondent packed some of his personal belongings and left home. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on the same day, Respondent returned home for more of his personal belongings. Respondent was still very angry. Respondent and Ms. Williams became involved in another argument. During the argument, Respondent continued to pack his things. He retrieved a large wrench from his closet. Respondent was walking down the hallway leading from the bedroom to the front door. Respondent had the wrench in one hand and other personal belongings in the other hand. Respondent told Ms. Williams that this time he was leaving for good. It was approximately 12:10 a.m. on March 10. Ms. Williams told Respondent that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. Respondent turned abruptly around to face Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams was startled and frightened. She ran into the bedroom from the hallway where she scraped her leg on a jagged corner of the bed, fell, and struck her right hand on the open sliding glass door of the bedroom. Respondent never struck Ms. Williams in any way, with his hands, the wrench, or otherwise. The injuries to Ms. Williams were minor. Respondent left. Ms. Williams spent the night in her car. The next day she reported the incident to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff"). Ms. Williams reported to the investigating officer that Respondent beat her with his hands and a wrench for about 15 minutes. The injuries observed by the investigating officer were not consistent with such a beating. The injuries to Ms. Williams were consistent with a trip and fall. Ms. Williams had a three inch cut on her left leg at approximately the height of the corner of the bed. She also had a bruise on her right hand and some swelling. Ms. Williams did not seek medical treatment for her injuries. On March 16, 1993, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. On April 5, 1993, Respondent entered into a Misdemeanor Intervention Agreement scheduled for six months. The agreement was terminated early on September 3, 1993. Respondent established a separate residence. Respondent had no further relations with Ms. Williams except those necessary for the care of their child. The Lip Respondent resided with his girlfriend and shared her car. Ms. Williams used Respondent's truck to commute to work. On March 27, 1994, Respondent went to Ms. Williams house to pick up clothes and diapers for his son. Ms. Williams routinely failed to deliver those items when she dropped off their child to Respondent. Ms. Williams was not home, and Respondent waited for her. When Ms. Williams arrived in Respondent's truck, the truck was driven by Ms. Williams' boyfriend. Respondent was angered that Ms. Williams' boyfriend was driving Respondent's truck. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend attempted to turn the truck around and leave. Respondent ran behind the truck so that the vehicle could not be turned around. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend were angry that Respondent blocked their exit. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend got out of the truck. The boyfriend and Respondent engaged in a physical altercation. During the altercation, Ms. Williams attacked Respondent. She hit and kicked him and jumped on his back. Either Respondent or the boyfriend inadvertently struck Ms. Williams in her lip. She went to the Lake City Medical Center for medical treatment. At the Medical Center, Ms. Williams reported the incident to the Sheriff. Her injuries were minor. On April 6, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. He entered a plea of nolo contendere. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on supervised probation for one year. On May 27, 1994, the supervised probation was converted to unsupervised probation with the provision that Respondent was not to contact Ms. Williams. The Window On April 4, 1994, Ms. Williams drove to Respondent's house to pick up their child. Respondent's girlfriend and mother were inside the house with him. Respondent went outside the house to the car. Ms. Williams got out of the car. She became belligerent and verbally abusive toward Respondent. Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave. Ms. Williams backed away from Respondent, struck the car window with her posterior, and the window broke. Ms. Williams became angrier. She threatened to have Respondent "messed up." Ms. Williams left with her child and went to her aunt's house. She telephoned the Sheriff and filed a complaint. On April 25, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with criminal mischief. Respondent determined that the criminal charges would be dropped if he paid for the window. Respondent gave Ms. Williams a money order for $159. On May 25, 1994, the state attorney filed a nolle prosequi declining to prosecute Respondent. In November, 1994, Respondent obtained custody of the only child of the marriage with Ms. Williams. Respondent has retained custody of the child. The Knife On February 1, 1995, Ms. Williams went to Respondent's house to deliver some clothes for their son. They went into the kitchen. Ms. Williams asked about reconciliation. Respondent stated that he wanted nothing to do with Ms. Williams. She became angry. She told him that she was going to "fix him." Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave, and she did. On February 2, 1995, Ms. Williams telephoned the Sheriff. She claimed Respondent had threatened her with a knife and beaten her for 15 to 30 minutes when she was at his home the previous day. Respondent did not batter Ms. Williams. He did not threaten her with a dangerous weapon. The investigating officer observed no injuries on Ms. Williams. She did not seek medical treatment for the alleged injuries even though she knew she was pregnant at the time with her boyfriend's child. A neighbor observed Ms. Williams leaving Respondent's home on February 1, 1995. She had no observable injuries and was gesturing to Respondent as she left. The state attorney charged Respondent with two misdemeanors, battery and exhibiting a dangerous weapon. The court found respondent not guilty of the latter offense but guilty of the former. The court sentenced Respondent to one year of unsupervised probation with the special condition that there be no contact with Ms. Williams. The Handgun On February 10, 1995, Respondent and Ms. Williams were driving in separate cars near the Gateway Plaza. Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office. She alleged that Respondent drove beside her and pointed a handgun at her. The state attorney charged Respondent with improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. On October 3, 1995, the court found Respondent not guilty of the offense. Respondent did not exhibit a dangerous weapon. Paternity In 1995, Ms. Williams became pregnant with the child of her boyfriend. Ms. Williams charged Respondent with paternity. Paternity tests proved that Respondent was not the father of the child. Respondent had not had sex with Ms. Williams since 1993. Other Matters After their divorce, Ms. Williams repeatedly threatened Respondent by stating that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. She filed approximately 20 complaints against Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. She also contacted the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to report Respondent for child abuse. Respondent did not report the criminal actions filed by Ms. Williams to his employer and received a written reprimand for not reporting the criminal matters. Respondent is still employed by the Department of Corrections.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(6) and (7) and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Since July 1, 1981, Respondent had been a certified correctional officer, holding certificate number C-3285. Currently, Respondent is no longer employed as a correctional officer. However, on January 10, 1987, Respondent was employed as the arsenal officer at the Union County Correctional Institution. Prior to and including January 10, 1987, Respondent had been experiencing a great deal of marital difficulty with his wife, Candy. Sometime around January 10, the Raulerson's decided to part company. On January 10 at about 5:15 p.m., Candy Raulerson asked Sheriff Deputy Joseph Guyott to accompany her to the marital residence in order to pick up some of her things. Upon arriving Deputy Guyott observed a sign on the door warning persons to enter at their own risk. No one appeared to be at home. He, also, observed a shotgun shell attached to the door and a fishing line attached to the door handle at one end and to a buried beer can at the other end. The shell could be clearly seen. Ms. Raulerson's things had been placed outside the home in the rain. Upon observing the shell arrangement at the front door, Deputy Guyott secured the area and called the Sheriff. Once the Sheriff arrived, he began to investigate the area around the residence. At the back door of the residence the Sheriff discovered a tear gas or smoke canister 1/ attached to a line at one end and tied to the back door at the other end. The line had so much slack in it that nothing would happen when the door was opened. More importantly, the canister had been rendered inoperable by bending over the firing pin and taping the spoon. The canister was neither explosive nor poisonous. Petitioner, therefore, failed to prove any violation of Section 790.161, Florida Statutes. Upon entering the residence through the back door the Sheriff walked to the front door. He observed that the shotgun shell had been attached to an electric cord. The cord was attached to the brass end of the shell. However, the Sheriff could not remember whether the cord was attached to the shell's primer. The cord was run behind the sofa, but was not plugged in. No evidence was presented by Petitioner as to the explosive potential, if any, of this arrangement. Petitioner, therefore, failed to prove that Respondent had violated Section 790.161, Florida Statutes. More importantly, however, is that the evidence is clear that Respondent had absolutely no intent to harm anyone, 2/ but only wished to scare off any person attempting entry. The Sheriff admitted that after seeing the front and back door arrangements that it was apparent that Respondent did not intend to hurt anyone and neither arrangement was rigged to do any damage. Petitioner's evidence only demonstrates that Respondent was defending his property from his wife's meddling during a time when they were experiencing a great deal of marital difficulty. Respondent utilized a scare tactic that was not dangerous and not intended to hurt anyone, but only to keep someone out during his absence. Respondent did not commit any crime by rigging the canister and the shell in the manner he did. Moreover, Respondent's actions do not demonstrate any lack of good moral character on his part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 2nd day of November, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner forfeits his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan.
Findings Of Fact In 2003, Petitioner started his employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("MDCPS" or "District") as a part-time substitute teacher. Since his initial employment with MDCPS, Petitioner has held positions that were part-time and full-time, as well as held hourly teacher positions, teacher positions, a Community School Act Leader III position, and assistant basketball coach positions. Petitioner took a leave of absence from MDCPS from August 23, 2010, to August 15, 2012. While on leave of absence the first year, Petitioner worked at Mater Academy Charter School as a middle school math teacher from September 2010 to August 2011. During the 2010-2011 school year, Cuenca worked for his private tutoring company, Professional Tutors Academy. Cuenca also was a part-time assistant basketball coach at Hialeah Gardens Senior High School from October 2011 through March 2012. From August 2012 through September 2012, MDCPS assigned Petitioner to Hammocks Middle School full-time, while he took and exhausted all of his sick and personal leave. From October 2012 to February 2013, Petitioner worked part-time as an assistant basketball coach for the varsity team at Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Petitioner's employment made him eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") Investment Plan. In 2014, Petitioner was arrested and charged with felonies, which included charges of "lewd and lascivious molestation on a child 12-16 years/attempt or lewd & lascivious on child over 16 by defendant over 18". Laura Adams ("Adams"), chief of Sexual Battery and Child Abuse Unit for Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office was assigned to prosecute Petitioner who ended up with four cases. Adams charged each case by information based on her victims, four former male basketball players, that each claimed Petitioner coached and sexually harassed and/or assaulted them. On October 4, 2016, Adams negotiated a plea agreement with Petitioner and his two attorneys for all four cases. Adams and Petitioner reached a compromise to resolve the charges that Petitioner had inappropriate contact with the four students. The agreement included that the state would dismiss two of the four cases and Petitioner would plea to two felony battery charges, one felony battery for victim D.F. and one felony battery for victim O.Q.1/ At Petitioner's plea hearing before Judge Milton Hirsch, Adams consolidated all of Petitioner's four cases into a single case with four counts on one charging document. During the hearing, Adams orally reduced count 2 and count 4 of the lewd and lascivious molestation on a child 12-16 years/attempt charges each to a felony battery and dismissed count 1 and count 3. Adams also wrote the negotiated plea terms on the information and agreed to supplement the file for the clerk later. The initialed handwritten information provided: [1]. . . .amended to felony battery 784.03 Nolle pros LA 10/4/16 Lewd + Lascivious Mol on Child < 16 but older than 12 F2 (14-25627) vic. D.F. Felony Battery 784.03 LA Lewd + Lascivious Conduct On Child < 16 by Adult F2 (vic D.N.)(F14-25629) Nolle pros 10/4/16 LA Lewd + Lascivious Molest. On child < 16 by older Then 12 (vic. O.Q>) (F16-14811) Felony Battery 784.03 LA 10/4/16 Petitioner pled to the negotiated settlement at the plea hearing. Judge Hirsch placed Petitioner under oath and went over the plea agreement with Petitioner in detail including informing Cuenca that: [Y]our attorney has worked out a plea for your benefit pursuant to which cases F14- 25627 and F16-14-14811 have been joined by the office of the state attorney in a single charging document now charging two counts of felony battery. The judge also ordered Petitioner not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, not to reside with minors, nor teach or coach minors. Petitioner accepted the negotiated plea to two felony battery charges and informed the judge that he understood the terms and conditions.2/ Neither the Petitioner nor his attorneys objected when Adams waived the defects in the charging document3/ relating to the two felony battery charges. After Petitioner's plea hearing, Judge Hirsch issued a written Order dated October 4, 2016, finding Petitioner guilty of two felony battery charges,4/ which were outlined in the Order as: COUNT CRIME DEGREE 2 BATTERY/FELONY 3/F 4 BATTERY/FELONY 3/F On October 11, 2016, Adams filed a typewritten amended information in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court docket to supplement the record as she had been instructed to do by the clerk during Petitioner's plea hearing on October 4, 2016. The amended information lists count 2 was reduced to BATTERY/FELONY 784.041 Fel 3D and that count 4 was reduced to BATTERY/FELONY 784.041 Fel 3D. In the information, Adams provided the time period for victim D.F.’s allegations as: "And the aforesaid Assistant State Attorney, under oath, further information makes Javier Alejandra Cuenca, on or between August 01, 2012 and December 31, 2012. " To date no post-conviction pleadings have been filed to vacate the plea. D.F. was a student and varsity basketball player at Hialeah Gardens High School during the 2012-2013 school year. Petitioner was the varsity assistant basketball coach and coached D.F. at Hialeah Gardens High School during the 2012- 2013 school year. Petitioner received wages in August, October, and December of 2012, but not in November 2012. Petitioner also earned credible service from August 2012 through December 2012 because he was employed with MDCPS. During Petitioner's employment, he utilized sick and personal leave from August 2012 to September 2012. Subsequently, basketball season started on October 10, 2012, and ended February 2013. Petitioner worked as a part-time employee coaching D.F.'s varsity basketball team during the basketball season, even though Petitioner did not receive any wages in November 2012. Petitioner was paid a lump sum in the amount of $1,473.00 in March 2013 for his services of coaching the varsity team D.F. played on during the 2012-2013 basketball season. Even though Petitioner was a part-time assistant basketball coach for the varsity basketball team, Petitioner earned credible service for all the months he coached, October 2012 through February 2013. Petitioner is the same Javier Cuenca that is the Defendant in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, case F14025627. FRS credible service is calculated based on an employee's position and the days worked, not whether the employee is paid wages. Employees can earn service credit even if not receiving wages during a particular month because the employee is employed that month. In October 2014, Petitioner withdrew all of his investment plan funds from his account and he has never reported that he was overpaid or contested the amount received. Mini Watson ("Watson"), director of Compliance over Investment Plans for the SBA, reviewed Petitioner's payroll reports and credible service report to ensure that he received the service credit to which he was entitled. Watson determined that Petitioner's coaching stipend was a salary after evaluating how MDCPS utilized its discretion as an agency and determined that Petitioner's part-time coaching position qualified for FRS. Watson also concluded MDCPS properly reported credible service for Petitioner from August 2012 through December 2012. After the review, SBA concluded that Petitioner's rights and benefits should be "forfeited as a result of [his] plea of nolo contendere in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, for acts committed while employed with the Miami-Dade County School Board" and informed Petitioner by letter dated February 7, 2017. Petitioner is protesting Respondent's notice of forfeiture letter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, it is determined that the competent evidence at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was an employee of MDCPS from August 2012 to December 2012 because he received credible service during that period. Specifically, the record supports that Petitioner was an employee when he was utilizing his sick and personal leave during August 2012 and September 2012 or he would not have been able to take the leave.5/ Watson's nearly 30 years of experience verifying agencies' compliance in reporting FRS members for determination of service credit entitlement allowed her to credibly assess that MDCPS properly categorized Petitioner's part-time assistant coach position as a FRS-eligible or credible service position from October 2012 to December 2012. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented to demonstrate Petitioner's lump sum salary paid in March 2013 was a bonus as asserted by Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent has proven that Petitioner occupied an FRS-eligible position during the time period that Petitioner’s information alleged his conduct took place for the underlying felony conviction. The undersigned further finds the compelling evidence as a whole demonstrates that Petitioner was found guilty of two felony battery charges, and count 2 related to the victim, student D.F. Specifically, the handwritten information, plea colloquy, Order, and amended information substantiate Petitioner pled to two counts of felony battery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a order finding that Petitioner pled to two felony counts, which are not specified offenses under section 112.3173(2)(e)6. and do not require forfeiture of his FRS rights and benefits pursuant to section 112.3173(3). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Tanika Parker was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 9, 2005, and was issued correctional certification number 251547. (admitted fact) From August 13, 2004, until July 13, 2006, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections and was assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution. (admitted fact) On January 9, 2006, Respondent applied for a correctional officer position with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. (admitted fact) On March 10, 2006, as part of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office application process, Respondent answered the written question: "Have you had an unprofessional relationship with an inmate, detainee, probationer or parolee, or community controlee [sic]?" by circling on the form as her response: "No." (admitted fact) Also during March 2006, George Montenegro, a Senior Inspector in the Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution, received information from a confidential informant that Respondent "was involved with" an inmate with the nickname of "Plump." Although an investigation was begun, it was not until early July when a second confidential informant disclosed the identity of Plump. It was inmate Leroy Rogers. Thereafter, Plump's phone calls were monitored, and his cell was searched on July 21, 2006. Among other items in Plump's cell were 34 photographs. At that point Respondent had resigned and was no longer an employee of the Department of Corrections. Since Respondent was in the process of being hired by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Inspector Montenegro contacted that agency and spoke with Eric Monath, a Sergeant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Division of Internal Affairs. The 34 photographs taken from Plump's cell included the following: one of a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Plump"; one with a little girl licking the icing off the cake knife; two of the front of Respondent's residence with the little girl in front; eleven more of the little girl at various locations; one close-up of an adult female's breasts; six close-ups of an adult female's naked genitalia; eight of an adult female's genitalia and/or buttocks either partially or fully covered by underwear; one of a T-shirt decorated with two hearts, one of which was inscribed "Plump" and the other one "Plumpness"; and three of a woman in that T-shirt, wearing some of the same underwear depicted in some of the other pictures. The photos of the naked or clothed woman do not show the woman's face, head, or neck. They only focus on a particular part of the female's anatomy. One of the pictures, however, shows the female from behind with her hands on her hips, and that one reveals a scar or discoloration on the woman's left, inside forearm. On July 27, 2006, Respondent attended an orientation session at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, wearing a sleeveless shirt. Sergeant Monath saw that same identifying mark on Respondent's forearm. On August 1, 2006, Sergeant Monath met with Inspector Montenegro at the Walgreen's near Respondent's residence and presented the photos with the identifying Walgreen's information on the back of each one to the store's manager. The store manager confirmed that the identifying information was for that store and, using it, checked the store's computer records. The customer for whom the photographs were developed was Respondent. Inspector Montenegro and Sergeant Monath then drove to Respondent's residence and compared the front of the structure to the structure depicted in the photographs. It was the same, including the location of the sprinkler head in the front yard. The monitored phone calls made by Plump were to a female who was never identified in the phone calls. However, during one of the calls, the female yelled instructions to someone in the background named Taliyah. Respondent's application for employment by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office listed as the only person living with her, her daughter Taliyah Wilcox. Inmate Rogers' visitor log shows that Respondent visited him thirteen times between November 4, 2006, and July 7, 2007. She listed herself as a "personal friend."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her correctional certificate numbered 251547. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire George G. Lewis, P.A. 950 South Pine Island Road, Suite 150 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement - 7100 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the CJSTC. On March 29, 1987, He was employed by the City of Clearwater in the uniform patrol division. Respondent graduated from the police academy in 1985, and served one and one-half years with the Belleair Police Department before being hired by the Clearwater Police Department. On the morning of March 29, 1987, while on patrol in a City of Clearwater police car, Respondent drove into the driveway of Lisa Scholl, a young woman occupying that residence. Ms. Scholl heard the engine of a car running in her driveway and came out of the house to inquire why the police car was there. At about the same time, Respondent received a call to investigate a complaint. He told Ms. Scholl he had stopped because her front door was open and that he had to leave to answer the call received on his radio. As a matter of fact, Respondent, who was having marital problems at the time, was intending to ask Ms. Scholl for a date. Respondent had never met Ms. Scholl but had accompanied another police officer to Ms. Scholl's residence some months earlier and was aware of who she was and where she lived. Ms. Scholl surmised Respondent intended to ask her for a date before he received the call on his radio and departed. Shortly thereafter it started raining rather hard. Ms. Scholl glimpsed a man in a yellow slicker crossing the woods alongside her house and became concerned that some criminal activity was happening in her vicinity. She then walked into her bathroom where she saw the face of a man peering through the jaloused window of her bathroom. She screamed, and the man wearing a yellow raincoat ran through the woods toward a police car parked down from her house. Ms. Scholl then called her cousin to come over to her house and she called the police who sent an officer to investigate. During the course of the investigation, Ms. Scholl identified Respondent as the individual she initially spoke to while parked in her driveway and the man she observed peering through her bathroom window. When questioned, Respondent ultimately admitted that he had looked through the window to Ms. Scholl's bathroom but did so only for the purpose of seeing if there was another person in the house. Respondent acknowledged that he had done a stupid thing in looking through a window into Ms. Scholl's home, but contended that no immoral conduct was intended by this act and that his sole purpose was to attempt to learn if some other man was in the house with Ms. Scholl. Respondent's denial of any attempt at voyeurism is supported by Exhibit 2, a psychological evaluation of Respondent. This evaluation found Respondent to be psychologically competent in all respects; a conscientious, hard working individual with a high sense of responsibility and loyalty; with none of the criteria for voyeurism; and highly unlikely to be involved in similar situations in the future.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. On August 7, 1982, Respondent was arrested on his property in Manatee County at a marijuana patch growing thereon. He was taken into custody, handcuffed, and placed in a Sheriff's Department vehicle for transportation into Bradenton for booking. Upon arrival at the sally port at the booking office and jail, Respondent was removed from the car. While the sequence of events that occurred was not explicated at the hearing, in Respondent's words "things got out of hand." Respondent testified the Deputy Sheriff tried to "break my arms while removing him from the vehicle, then "overreacted" and drew his pistol. As he emerged from the car, one of Respondent's handcuffs came off, Respondent seized the deputy's gun and ran away. Respondent surrendered himself to authorities the following day and the gun was returned by his attorney a few days later. Respondent was charged and tried on three counts involving manufacture, use, or intent to use, and possession of marijuana; grand theft of the pistol taken from the Deputy Sheriff; aggravated assault; and escape from confinement. He pleaded nolo contendere to all counts except aggravated assault, to which he pleaded and was found not guilty. Adjudication of guilt was withheld on the three marijuana counts (Counts I, II, and III) and on the grand theft count (Count IV), and Respondent was sentenced to ten days' confinement on work release program on Counts I, II, III, and IV, and was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for three years on Count IV. He was found guilty of escape from confinement and was sentenced to 11-1/2 months in the County Jail work release program and placed on three years probation to run concurrently with the probation in Count IV. Respondent has lived in Manatee County all his life and his parents are long-time residents. He has been licensed as a real estate broker for seven years and was a salesman before becoming a broker. The psychotherapist to whom Respondent was referred for counseling after his arrest testified that he met with Respondent for counseling for more than 100 hours and that he administered standards tests to Respondent to determine emotional stability and personality traits. This witness opined that Respondent is of moral standards without psychiatric problems or personality disorders, and that he is a church-going man. This witness did not consider the stealing of the deputy's firearm to be an immoral act, but considered the growing of marijuana to be a moral offense.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Larry Beard, violated section 473.323(1)(l), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence presented in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are found: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of certified public accounting in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 473, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed as a certified public accountant by the State of Florida, having been issued license number AC 007921 on September 4, 1979. Respondent’s license is currently listed as “current, inactive,” and expires December 31, 2015. No evidence of any prior discipline against Respondent’s license was offered. On or about November 10, 1994, an Information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, charging him with six counts: 1) sexual battery, a capital felony; 2) lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years, a second-degree felony; 3) handling and fondling a child under the age of 16 years, a second-degree felony; 4) lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of 16, a second-degree felony; 5) lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of 16, a second-degree felony; and 6) handling and fondling a child under the age of 16, a second- degree felony. The victim in the criminal proceedings was nine years old. Counts 3 and 4 were nolle prossed. After a jury trial, on October 16, 1996, Respondent was found guilty of Counts 1 and 2. Respondent pled nolo contendere to Counts 5 and 6. On November 1, 1996, Respondent was originally sentenced to life in prison for Count 1 and 40 years in prison for Count 2, to be imposed consecutively. Respondent appealed his conviction and sentence to the Second District Court of Appeal. In Larry Beard v. State of Florida, Case No. 96-4909 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 24, 1999), the Second District affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 2, but vacated the judgments with respect to Counts 5 and 6, because the trial court failed to renew the offer of assistance of counsel to Mr. Beard at the plea hearing. For the same reason with respect to the sentencing hearing, the sentences for all four counts were reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing for Counts 1 and 2. The Court directed that Respondent be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea with respect to Counts 5 and 6. On November 24, 1999, Respondent was re-sentenced to the same sentences for Counts 1 and 2. Counts 5 and 6 were nolle prossed. Respondent again appealed the sentencing order to the Second District Court of Appeal. In Larry Beard v. State of Florida, Case No. 2D00-271 (Fla. 2d DCA June 26, 2002), the Second District affirmed the judgment and sentence for Count 1 and found no error in the application of a sexual predator designation. With respect to Count 2, the State conceded that the 40-year sentence was a scrivener’s error (the trial judge orally imposed a 40-month sentence at the sentencing hearing), and the court found that it was imposed based upon an incorrect sentencing scoring sheet. The case was again remanded to the trial court to address the sentence in Count 2. The sentence ultimately imposed for Count 2 is not in the record of this proceeding. Regardless of the changes in sentencing, the fact remains that Respondent was convicted of capital sexual battery in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes, and a lewd act upon a child, in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent has been incarcerated within the Florida Department of Corrections since November 7, 1996, and remains incarcerated. On or about January 6, 1998, Respondent requested that his license be placed in a “current, inactive” status. He did not at that time, or anytime thereafter before December 2012, notify the Department that he had been convicted of any crime. Respondent used two other individuals, James Galloway and Penny Loulargous, to assist him in maintaining his license in an inactive status after his incarceration. His address was at different times listed “in care of” these individuals. In December 2012, Respondent wrote to the Department requesting that his address be changed from Mr. Galloway’s address to the Okaloosa Correctional Institution located in Crestview, Florida. Upon receiving the address change request, the Department opened an investigation to determine why he was in prison. However, in June 2013, the investigation was closed, in error, for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2014, correspondence was sent to accountancy licensees whose licenses were in inactive or delinquent status about an amnesty program authorized by legislation passing during the 2014 session. Respondent responded to the Department correspondent with a letter of his own, asking questions regarding the continuing education requirements for attaining active status. As a result, the Department re-opened the investigation that was closed in June 2013. This re-opened investigation led to the charges at issue in these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 473.323(1)(l), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 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 13th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Thomas Mosley, should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thomas Mosley, was employed by Dignity Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Dignity"), in July of 1996. Dignity provides a home for developmentally disabled clients and a home for severely disabled clients. Both homes are located in Deland, Florida. Mr. Mosley was discharged by Dignity on or about November 4, 1996, as a result of background screening pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. As a result of background screening required for Mr. Mosley to be employed by Dignity, it was determined that Mr. Mosley had been arrested on July 2, 1993, July 24, 1993, and June 19, 1994. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the July 2, 1993 arrest: Mr. Mosley was charged by the arresting officer with "Battery (Domestic Violence)" as defined in Section 784.03, Florida Statutes; An Information was filed August 3, 1993, charging Mr. Mosley with "Battery, in Violation of F.S. 784.03(1)(a), a First Degree Misdemeanor" in that Mr. Mosley "on or about the 1st day of JULY, 1993 . . . did actually and intentionally touch or strike K. Mosley against her will by striking victim against her will"; The charge was nolle prossed on or about January 7, 1994. The "K. Mosley" referred to in the Information is Mr. Mosley’s wife. They have been married since 1987 and have three children. At the time of the formal hearing they were still married, but not living together. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the July 24, 1993 arrest: Mr. Mosley was charged with breach of an injunction in violation of Section 741.31, Florida Statutes; An Information was filed August 16, 1993, charging Mr. Mosley with "VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, in Violation of F.S. 741.31, a Second Degree Misdemeanor" in that Mr. Mosley "on or about the 24th day of July, 1993 . . . did then and there willfully violate the provisions of an injunction for protection against domestic violence, issued pursuant to F.S. 741.30, by refusing to vacate the dwelling that the parties share, or by returning to said property, to-wit: by returning to said property"; The charge was nolle processed on or about January 7, 1994. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the June 19, 1994 arrest: Mr. Mosley was charged with "Battery (Domestic)" in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and Resisting Arrest without violence in violation of Section 843.02, Florida Statutes; On or about August 23, 1994, Mr. Mosley pled nolo contendere to the battery charge. The resisting arrest charge was nolle processed; Mr. Mosley was placed on 4 months probation, required to pay court costs, and ordered to undergo domestic abuse counseling. Mr. Mosley successfully completed a battery intervention course. At hearing Mr. Mosley denied that he had ever struck his wife. He did admit, however, that he got into arguments with his wife and that he would lose his temper during these arguments. Mr. Mosley also admitted that he had grabbed his wife in an effort to stop her from telephoning the police before his arrest on June 19, 1994. According to the arrest record, relating to the June 19, 1994 arrest, Mr. Mosley pushed his wife to the ground. Mr. Mosley denied this allegation. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Mosley suffered any injury if Mr. Mosley did push her to the ground. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Mosley injured any person during the incidents which led to his arrest on July 2, 1993, July 24, 1993, or June 19, 1994. Mr. Mosley has been working for a construction company since his employment at Dignity was terminated. At the time of the formal hearing Mr. Mosley was no longer working for the construction company. He had been terminated due to a dispute with his supervisor.
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 Children and Families granting Thomas Mosley an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Section 435, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Mosley 418 Peachtree Circle Deland, Florida 32720 Daniel Medved, Assistant District Legal Counsel District 12 Legal Office Department of Children and Families 20 Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
