Findings Of Fact During the period January 26, 1994, to September 28, 1994, in Broward County, Florida, Respondent performed the services of a private investigator without a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License. 1/ Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of persons providing private investigative, private security, and private repossession services in Florida pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent first applied to Petitioner for licensure as a private investigator on October 4, 1994. At no time prior to that application was the Respondent licensed as a private investigator by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by American Recovery Specialist of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (American Recovery). On January 1994, American Recovery was employed by Riverside National Bank (Riverside) to locate Ms. Chaan S. Capps and her 1993 Nissan Maxima that she had financed through Riverside. Respondent performed investigative services pertaining to this account with Riverside in January and February 1994. Matthew Ross is the boyfriend of Ms. Capps. Mike Levine and Matthew Ross are friends. On January 26, 1994, Respondent called Mike Levine pertaining to this investigation. During this telephone conversation, Respondent identified himself to Mr. Levine as a detective from the Metro-Dade Police Department and asked him questions about Ms. Capps. Frances Ross is the mother of Matthew Ross. On February 9, 1994, Matthew Ross found one of the Respondent's business cards in the gate of his mother's residence. The business card contained Respondent's name, the name of his employer, and his telephone number. The card also contained the handwritten notation "call ASAP." Mr. Ross called from his mother's house the telephone number listed on the business card and he spoke with the Respondent. Respondent told Mr. Ross during this telephone conversation on February 9, 1995, that he was an investigator with the Metro-Dade Police investigating the Chaan Capps case. The conversation between Respondent and Mr. Ross terminated when Mr. Ross became upset, handed the telephone to his mother, and walked out of the house. Respondent thereafter told Frances Ross that Ms. Capps was wanted by Metro-Dade Police and that he was investigating the case for Metro-Dade Police.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and imposes administrative fines against the Respondent as follows: An administrative fine in the amount of $100 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. An administrative fine in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1995.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons engaged in the business of private investigation. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was licensed as a class "CC" private investigator intern, license number CC97-00449. Respondent also holds a class "G" statewide firearms license, license number G97-01406. During some period prior to September 3, 1997, Respondent was employed by J.R. Investigative Agency. Mr. Onativia owns and operates J.R. Investigative Agency. In August 1997, Mr. Onativia filed a complaint with the Department that Respondent was conducting private investigations without a license. Ms. Robinson, an investigator for the Division of Licensing, was assigned to review the complaint. Ms. Robinson contacted Respondent and advised him that the agency had received a complaint that he was conducting investigations on his own without an agency license. Respondent admitted he was doing investigations but claimed Mr. Onativia knew of his activities. He further admitted to Ms. Robinson that he was doing investigations on his own for attorneys in order to support his family. Respondent had also admitted to the investigation activities to John Esposito. After Ms. Robinson confirmed the information with Mr. Esposito as to the admissions made by Respondent, investigation of the complaint stopped.
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 revoking Respondent's class "CC" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1999, 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 1st day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Katherine Harris, Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol, Plaza 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Steve Bensko, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 David C. Rash, Esquire Law Offices of Johnson and Rash 1509 Northeast Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of fraud or deceit in the practice of activities regulated under Chapter 493 and knowingly violating a statutory prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm in the course of business regulated by Chapter 493.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, a Class "C" Private Investigator License, and a Class "PD" Proprietary Security Officer License. By final order entered December 8, 1992, Petitioner suspended Respondent's Class "A" and "C" licenses for one year for unlawfully intercepting oral communications. The final order also imposes an administrative fine of $1000 for this violation. In August, 1991, Respondent was retained by a client to perform an asset check of another person. Respondent did not perform the work to the client's satisfaction, so the client filed a complaint with Petitioner. On September 17, 1991, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent at his office to conduct an interview. When the investigator asked to see Respondent's file on the case, he went to his filing cabinet, pulled out a drawer, and exclaimed that the file was missing. The investigator asked what happened, and Respondent said that someone must have stolen the file. The investigator advised Respondent that, if so, he should report the theft to the police. Respondent did report the theft to the police. In so doing, he made a false report to the police. The file was not missing or stolen; Respondent was trying to obstruct the investigation into the complaint that the client had made against him. When requested to visit the police station for an interview in November, 1991, Respondent wore his handgun in a shoulder holster under his jacket. The evidence is unclear as to the status of Respondent's Class "C" license at the time of the interview at the police department. There is some evidence that it had expired due to nonrenewal, but Respondent also testified that he had already mailed a check and the paperwork necessary for the renewal. However, Respondent may be presumed to be aware that even a current Class "C" license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed firearm into a police station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order dismissing Count II, finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(f), issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000. ENTERED on September 24, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attorney Henri C. Cawthon Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank J. Lanzillo 520 - 12 Street West, #203 Bradenton, Florida 32405
The Issue As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI. CASE NO. 95-3553 On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed. 1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows: A. 1-4-95 Computer Research $100.00 B. 1-5-95 Surveillance 130.00 C. 1-5-95 Travel Time 32.50 D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 ) 33.75 E. 1-6-95 Surveillance 325.00 F. 1-6-95 Travel Time 65.00 G. 1-7-95 Standby Time 65.00 $751.25 The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00. His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted. CASE 95-4775 At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing the following facts were found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A", private investigative agency license Number GA 0002275 and a Class "C", private investigator license number GC 0001218. Respondent has been actively engaged as a private investigator in the Daytona Beach/Volusia County area of the State of Florida for over 25 years. A substantial portion of Respondent's activities as a investigator, are performed for attorneys representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants who employ the Respondent to investigate accidents, locate and question witnesses, photograph vehicles and sites, serve subpoenas for trial and deposition, and on occasion to perform surveillance. Records of the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Florida, reflect that Respondent was arrested on September 9, 1982 by the Ormond Beach, Florida, Police Department and charged with Attempted Murder. The State Attorney For The Seventh Judicial Circuit, by Information dated September 22, 1982, charged the Respondent with Attempted First Degree Murder and Aggravated Battery. By Order of August 10, 1982, the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, accepted the Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Aggravated Battery, a Second Degree Felony. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of 5 years. Respondent has no previous criminal record, although once arrested in 1974 on a complaint that was Nolle Prosequi by the State of Florida as a case of mistaken identity. Respondent's testimony that he was aware of only 1 complaint to the Department against him as a private investigator and that that complaint was disposed of as "unfound" went unrebutted. The circumstances that led up to Respondent's arrest on September 9, 1982 were domestic in nature: The Respondent objected to a relationship that had developed between his 12-year-old daughter, Vicky, an eighth grade student, and Thomas Parker (Parker) a 17-year-old boy about a year before the shooting incident on September 9, 1982. The Respondent came to disapprove of Parker because of Respondent's view that Parker was too old for his daughter, did not go to work or school, had no parental supervision or discipline, and was of dubious character and reputation. Respondent's efforts to terminate the relationship were frustrated. Respondent became convinced that Parker had introduced his daughter to sex, alcohol and the use of marijuana and other drugs. Respondent forbade his daughter from seeing Parker but the relationship continued and caused friction and tension within the family. Within a year, Vicky went from an "A" student to a "drop-out". Respondent sought advice and assistance from friends and public officials in regard to terminating this relationship but to no avail. Vicky was sent to live with Respondent's son in another part of the state but was brought back home when Parker began to pose a threat to the tranquility of the son's home. During the evening of September 8, 1982, Respondent and his wife, Louise Kinney, discovered that Vicky was missing from her bedroom. Respondent proceeded to search for Vicky but to no avail. Respondent reported this to the Ormond Beach Police Department because he thought Vicky had run away and was in the accompany of Parker. Sometime between 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m on September 9, 1982, Respondent heard someone at Vicky's bedroom window and went outside to "check it out" with a .357 magnum pistol, a metal baseball bat and a flashlight. Respondent found Parker and a friend helping Vicky into her bedroom window. When Parker and his friend saw Respondent they ran and Respondent gave chase. While chasing Parker, Respondent tripped over a vent pipe to a storage tank and the pistol discharged hitting Parker in the lower back. Respondent's testimony that he did not intend to shoot Parker and that the shooting was accidental went unrebutted. These comments are consistent with Respondent's explanation to the police officers called to the scene of the shooting and consistent with his comments to Dr. Barnard, a psychiatrist. Respondent's testimony that it was his intent to only hold Parker at the scene for the police so that Respondent could charge Parker with trespassing and possibly relieve a bad situation at home went unrebutted. Neither Parker nor his friend were armed. While Dr. Barnard's report indicates that Respondent was legally sane and competent at the time of the shooting, the testimony of Dr. Maximo Hancock, a psychiatrist and Dr. Barnard's initial and supplemental reports indicate that Respondent was under a tremendous emotional strain that could have resulted in Respondent reacting without knowing what he was doing at the time. Parker has brought a civil suit against Respondent for damages predicated in the part upon allegations that Respondent's action constituted negligence in a deliberate assault or battery. Respondent homeowner's insurance carrier which insured Respondent for negligence but not for deliberate and willful acts, has "accepted the risk" and is furnishing Respondent with legal defense in this civil litigation. Of the 10 witnesses to testify for Respondent, 8 of them were attorneys that had known Respondent for a period of time and had employed Respondent before and after the shooting incident to perform those services listed in paragraph 2 above. The general consensus of these witnesses was that the Respondent enjoyed an excellent reputation as an investigator for skill and competency, trustworthiness and high ethical standards, and for pursuit of his investigative duties without breach of the peace. None of these witnesses expressed any reservation or hesitancy about continuing to use Respondent's services because of any propensity toward violence. These witnesses viewed the shooting incident of which all were aware, as an isolated personal matter unrelated to and outside the scope of his activities as an investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of the violations as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State LL 10, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry P. Duffett 120 E. Granada Boulevard Post Office Box 2633 Ormond Beach, Florida 32075 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1985. =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Licensing issue Patricia T. Uyaan a Class "C" Private Detective License. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Patricia T. Uyaan 316 Linden Lane Orange Park, Florida 32073 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator's License Number C90-00727 and a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, Number G90-02226. In April 1991 Respondent taught a Saturday morning class, the third or fourth week of that month, in which Beatrice Price and Ryan Martin were trainees. At the conclusion of the lecture Respondent took the two trainees on a "real" investigation. The subject of the investigation was a dentist, Dr. Kathleen Gerreaux, under surveillance on either a worker's compensation claim or a liability claim (conflict in the testimony and the type of surveillance is not relevant). Respondent placed a microphone under the blouse of Beatrice Price a/k/a Beatrix Herrera and had her go to the office of Dr. Gerreaux to try and learn in what activities she was engaging. The conversation was recorded in Respondent's van parked some distance away. When Herrera returned to the van the tape was replayed in her presence and the words of the investigator and Dr. Gerreaux could be clearly understood. Shortly thereafter Dr. Gerreaux left her office and returned to her home. Respondent took the van to the vicinity of the residence, parked several houses away and rigged Ryan Martin with a microphone under his shirt and had him go to Dr. Gerreaux's home to attempt to get her to go jogging or perform some other exercise which could be videotaped. Herrera overheard the conversation between Martin and Dr. Gerreaux while waiting in the van. This incident was not reported to Petitioner until several months later after Herrera had contacted plaintiff's investigator to complain about an incident which she was told she had been taped without her knowledge or consent. When told that her evidence was insufficient to support her claim Herrera told the investigator about the taping of the conversation with Dr. Gerreaux. This initiated the investigation which led to the Administrative Complaint filed herein. After talking to Herrera and Martin the investigator also interviewed Respondent regarding the taping incident. Respondent admitted to the investigator that he had used Herrera and Martin to intercept the conversations with Dr. Gerreaux, but said the tapes were unintelligible. Respondent's version of this incident was similar to the testimony given at the hearing by Herrera except for the clarity of the taped conversation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding David J. Berry guilty of violating section 493.6118(1)(f), F.S. and that an Administrative fine of $1000 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 2nd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald L. Jones, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On June 22, 1987, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for a Class "C" private investigator license. After review of the application and verification of the previous work experience listed in it, Respondent determined the work experience did not meet the statutory requirement of section 493.306 (4), Florida Statutes, that an applicant for the Class "C" license have two years training or experience in private investigative work or related work areas providing equivalent experience. The Respondent denied Petitioner's application on October 5, 1987. The Petitioner is presently employed as a process server. He was employed for varying periods of time between July, 1984, and May of 1987, by four law firms. In the course of this employment, Petitioner sometimes assisted lawyers and witnesses prepare for trial by retrieval of information from records within the particular firm where he was working, or from public records at various public institutions. Among the public records he is accustomed to reviewing are those of Respondent's Division of Corporations. On one occasion, he did, pursuant to instructions from his employer, search through a garage in Tampa, Florida, for certain records. In the course of his work experience, Petitioner has never conducted any kind of surveillance, located a missing person, or investigated a homicide or arson case. He has never testified at a trial or conducted an electronic "debugging" or "bugging" exercise. The Petitioner completed a short prescribed program at the Miami-Dade Community College in August of 1979, and was awarded a "planned certificate" as a legal assistant. To obtain this certificate, he completed various courses at the college during the period stretching from January, 1976, until July, 1979. Among those courses completed by the Petitioner were three hour courses in legal research, business law, legal writing, domestic relations and criminal law, and legal writing. Alan Rollins, assistant director for Respondent's licensing division, testified that Respondent's policy has been to define the statutorily required licensing prerequisite of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work" as a requirement that an applicant for a Class "C" license possess field investigatory experience beyond the mere review of public records. Rollins noted that even law enforcement officers could not be licensed under this policy, unless equipped with investigatory experience. He further stated that the policy is the result of Respondent's desire to be consistent with the perceived legislative intent of the statute to protect the public welfare. Harvey Morse, owner of several private investigator agencies, holder of a law degree and a practicing private investigator, testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. The testimony of Morse establishes that surveillance experience is essential to the conduct of investigations by private investigators. Since the purpose of licensing private investigators is to protect the interest of the public in obtaining competent services from persons holding themselves out as private investigators, the legal research experience and education of the Respondent is not, standing alone, an adequate substitute for the statutory requirement of experience in the areas of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work". Morse, who also serves as chairman of the advisory council which advises the Respondent on licensing of this profession, opined that the Petitioner was qualified only to obtain information from public records. Experience in a related field of work should involve surveillance. Such experience could be obtained by the Petitioner through first obtaining a Class "CC" license and working as an intern to a licensed investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Included in finding 1. Included in finding 2. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 1. 5.-14. Unnecessary to result reached. 15. Included in finding 5. 16.-19. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 3. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 2. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL, 32399-0250 Mr. Martin Broyles 985 N.E. 149th Street Miami, Florida 33161 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a Class "C" private investigator and Class "MA" agency manager, having been issued licenses numbered C-0002856 and NA-8600240, respectively. On or about November 10, 1988, Respondent was engaged in an investigation and surveillance involving Joseph King to determine if King was disabled for purposes of a worker's compensation claim which was being disputed by the insurance carrier. As a result of Respondent's investigation, King was eventually denied certain benefits which he would otherwise have received. Respondent was performing this work through the Hillsborough County branch office of TRACE, Inc., a licensed private investigative agency which he managed. He was accompanied in this investigation and surveillance of King by two other licensed private investigators. During the course of this investigation,and surveillance, King became aware of Respondent and the other two investigators who were following him. He confronted one of the investigators named Tony Hobbs, and after it became apparent that King was preventing Hobbs from leaving, Respondent came to his aid and attempted to calm down the situation. King continued to refuse to allow the investigators to leave, and eventually Deputy Sheriffs arrived and secured Hobbs' release. At hearing, Mr. and Mrs. King both testified that Respondent and the other investigator, Hobbs, falsely identified themselves as federal agents who were allegedly involved in an undercover drug investigation. Respondent denies that he ever made such a representation to the Kings. Hobbs was not present to testify, but in a statement given to the Petitioner's investigator, John Matlack, in the regular course of his investigation of this incident Hobbs stated that he had been told by one of the Deputy Sheriffs that Respondent had made this statement. However, Hobbs was fired from TRACE, Inc., a couple of weeks after this incident, and therefore, has a motive for placing Respondent's license in jeopardy. Based upon the demeanor and testimony of Respondent and the Kings at hearing, as well as the motive which existed for the Kings to try to get back at Respondent for their loss of certain benefits resulting from his investigation, it is found that Respondent did not falsely identify himself as a federal agent at any time during the course of this investigation. Respondent was calm, orderly, logical, coherent and professional in his recollection of events, while Mr. King was aggressive and hostile towards Respondent. It was King who provoked the confrontation with Hobbs by restraining and preventing him from leaving. It was King who was angry with the investigators, including Respondent, and who allowed them to leave only after Deputy Sheriffs arrived. At hearing, it was King who was unclear in his recollection of specific details about the events of November 10, 1988, and he was clearly still angry with Respondent. The Petitioner also alleges that Respondent falsely identified himself as a federal agent to a neighbor of King, but that neighbor was not present to testify and his absence was not explained. Therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support this allegation concerning a statement allegedly made by Respondent to King's neighbor. It is against the policy of Respondent's company, TRACE, Inc., for any agent to represent himself to be a federal agent, and such misrepresentation is a basis for termination. Respondent is well aware of this policy, and credibly testified that he did not violate it in his investigation of King.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charge that Respondent violated Section 493.319(1)(i) Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 2-5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings cannot be made on the narrative statement filed by the Respondent on March 1, 1990, since it does not contain separately numbered proposed findings of fact and does not evidence that Respondent has provided a copy to counsel for the Petitioner. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Michael R. Heiland P. O. Box 152143 Tampa, FL 33614 Ken Rouse, Esguire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Captol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A00-01205, and a Class "C" Private Investigator Licence, Number C00-01229. Respondent has been licensed as a private investigator since 1962. During that time, there has been no disciplinary action against his licenses. On or about May 26, 1994, Leslie Dillingham hired Respondent to obtain proof of her husband's homosexuality for use in a divorce and custody proceeding. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she requested that Respondent conduct a surveillance of her husband, Mr. Dillingham, and his alleged boyfriend. She also requested that Respondent send someone who could pass as being gay to attend a meeting of an alleged support organization for homosexual men at a branch of the public library on May 28, 1994. Ms. Dillingham wanted to find out the names and addresses of the gay men who were members of the support group. Respondent represented to Ms. Dillingham that he would conduct the surveillance and that he had employees that could assist him in performing these services. He told Ms. Dillingham that he had an employee who could pass as being gay and infiltrate the organization of gay men. However, that employee was out of town. Respondent said he would contact this employee and have him attend the meeting at the library. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she expressly informed Respondent of the time constraints involved in the investigation. She needed all available information before June 7, 1994, which was the trial date for her divorce and child custody proceeding. Ms. Dillingham specifically requested an oral daily report, an itemized statement of the work done, and a written report of the outcome of Respondent's investigation. Respondent was to make his daily reports by telephone to Ms. Dillingham's home or office. Ms. Dillingham gave Respondent some pictures of her husband and his alleged boyfriend along with the tag numbers for their automobiles. She also gave Respondent a retainer in the amount of $1,500. She agreed to pay Respondent and/or his employees $40 per hour. Respondent immediately began his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's residence on May 26, 1994. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked alone and did not engage any employee or other investigator to assist him with the investigation. On May 27, 1994, Respondent continued his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's apartment and made spot checks at the home of the alleged boyfriend who lived in a different part of town. The surveillance revealed no contact between the two subjects. Respondent did not attempt to make his daily report to Ms. Dillingham. On May 28, 1994, Respondent conducted surveillance of the subjects' residences, first one and then the other, until 4:00 p.m. At that time, Respondent went to the library branch where the support group was scheduled to meet. He had been unable to arrange for his employee to infiltrate the meeting. Instead, Respondent sat outside the door of the meeting where he could hear the group planning a Memorial Day picnic. He was able to record the tag numbers of some of the men attending the meeting. Neither of the subjects attended the support group meeting. After the meeting, Respondent resumed his surveillance at the residences of Mr. Dillingham and the alleged boyfriend. They did not have any contact with each other. Again, Respondent did not attempt to contact his client to make his daily report. The next day was Sunday, May 29, 1994. Once again Respondent's surveillance of the subjects' residences was not fruitful. Respondent contacted his client, Ms. Dillingham, who directed him not to begin surveillance of the husband until after noon the next day. Ms. Dillingham did not want Respondent to conduct surveillance on the morning of May 30, 1994, because her husband would have visitation with their son during that time. Monday, May 30, 1994, was Memorial Day. Respondent's surveillance from 1:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. did not reveal any contact between the subjects. However, Respondent made his daily report to his client. Ms. Dillingham informed Respondent that she was attempting to serve her husband's male friends with subpoenas for deposition. She told Respondent that once "the cat was out of the bag," continued surveillance probably would not be useful. On May 31, 1994, Respondent was unable to locate the vehicle of the client's husband at home or at work. Spot checks throughout the day revealed no activity between the subjects. When Respondent made his daily report, Ms. Dillingham told him that depositions of her husband's friends would take place on June 2, 1994, and mediation on June 3, 1994. After this conversation, Respondent understood that the surveillance part of the investigation was complete. Ms. Dillingham's husband had visitation with their son on Wednesday evening, June 2, 1994, and on the weekend from Friday, June 3, 1994, through Sunday, June 5, 1994. Ms. Dillingham did not want surveillance conducted during visitation periods. Ms. Dillingham and her sister, Karlene Goller, tried to reach Respondent by phone several times everyday from June 1, 1994, through June 4, 1994. They were not successful. On Sunday, June 5, 1994, Respondent returned one of Ms. Dillingham's calls and agreed to meet her at her office. During the meeting, Respondent returned the photographs of Ms. Dillingham's husband and his alleged boyfriend. He also gave her the tag numbers of some of the men who attended the support group meeting at the public library. Ms. Dillingham was dissatisfied with the results of Respondent's investigation because it had not produced any evidence of her husband's homosexuality. Respondent informed Ms. Dillingham that he had worked for 60 hours on the case. Ms. Dillingham was so upset that Respondent agreed to continue the investigation without charging her for his time in excess of the $1,500 retainer. Respondent said he would visit some gay bars to determine whether anyone knew Mr. Dillingham. Respondent told Ms. Dillingham that he might have to pay someone at the gay bars to contact him if they saw Mr. Dillingham at a bar. On Monday, June 6, 1994, Respondent went to some gay bars. At a bar known as the Metro, Respondent made contact with a bartender/security man, Bruce Long, who knew most of the gay men in town. However, Mr. Long did not know Mr. Dillingham by name and verbal description. Respondent gave $50 dollars to Mr. Long and promised to furnish him with a photograph of Mr. Dillingham. In exchange for the money, Mr. Long agreed to call Respondent if he saw Mr. Dillingham. Around 11:00 p.m. on June 6, 1994, Respondent met with Ms. Dillingham and her sister at a Waffle House on Roosevelt Boulevard. She gave a photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Respondent to show to Mr. Long at the Metro. Later that night, Respondent returned to the Metro. He gave the photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Mr. Long who agreed to show it around to friends and bartenders at other gay clubs. June 7, 1994, was the date of the final hearing in Ms. Dillingham's divorce and custody proceeding. After checking with Mr. Long to find out if any of his gay friends knew Mr. Dillingham, Respondent beeped Ms. Dillingham indicating that he had no new information. Ms. Dillingham never saw Respondent's investigative report marked as Petitioner's Exhibit One (1) until an investigator from Petitioner's office showed it to her. She never received an itemized statement or bill indicating how Respondent spent her retainer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 and placing the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1996. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 except for last sentence in 3(a) of the Proposed Facts which is rejected. No persuasive evidence that Respondent and his client discussed the need to make inquiries at gay bars during the initial meeting. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10 and 16-17. Accept in Findings of Fact 17 that Respondent agreed to visit some gay bars but reject that Respondent offered to buy testimony. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry H. Wells Attorney at Law 8015 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
