Findings Of Fact Respondent held a certificate as a law enforcement officer from June 15, 1979 through October 1, 1983. This certificate is currently inactive. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was employed in a law enforcement capacity with the Pompano Beach Police Department. On October 2, 1981, Respondent, who is black, filed a memo with the Chief of the Pompano Beach Police Department, alleging harassment of black officers and mistreatment of prisoners by police supervisors. Respondent also described an alleged beating by police in an incident which occurred on June 8, 1981. The June 8 incident came to Respondent's attention weeks later in a casual conversation with a Mr. Phillip Robinson who had witnessed the incident and described it to Respondent. Respondent, in turn, reviewed the files and found no "use of force" report which led him to conclude that the incident had been covered-up. At Respondent's urging, Robinson came forward and gave his statement to the Pompano Beach Police Department regarding this incident. An investigation of this incident and Respondent's other allegations was conducted by the department. Their findings and conclusions differed substantially from those of Respondent. Contrary to Respondent's contention, a use of force report had been filed. Also, Robinson did not actually see the police strike the detainee on the head nor did he observe six blows as related by Respondent. It must be recognized that Respondent was urging an investigation and did not intentionally misrepresent facts which he himself sought to have determined through such investigation. However, Respondent's accusations of police brutality, official cover up, and racial harassment were at best premature, where, as with the June 8 incident, he was neither a witness nor the designated investigator. The second incident on which evidence was presented arose when Respondent reported for reassignment as a "teleserve officer" on December 27, 1982. Respondent had been contacted at home and verbally told to report to Captain Sullivan at 11:00 a.m. for the new assignment. Sullivan observed Respondent outside his office shortly after 11:00 a.m. and directed him to come into the office to discuss his new duties. Respondent refused to come in stating that he had to go to the bathroom. Shortly thereafter he did return and enter Sullivans' office. An argument which involved shouting heard by other employees ensued, and Sullivan thereupon suspended Respondent and temporarily relieved him of duties. Respondent was in a guarded state of mind when he reported to Captain Sullivan. He had previously been under psychological evaluation on order of the department and had only three days previously filed several memos accusing police officials of racial harassment and requesting an investigation. Without Sullivan's knowledge, Respondent recorded that portion of the conversation which took place inside Sullivan's office. A transcript of this conversation revealed that Respondent was prepared to accept his new assignment, but believed that it was a desk job created to harass him. Respondent made several accusations of harassment which apparently angered Sullivan, resulting in a loud and angry exchange. Respondent established through the testimony of the former city personnel director and coworkers at the Pompano Beach Police Department that he was targeted for firing by police supervisors who wanted to get rid of him. This testimony also established that Respondent was a capable patrolman who had been commended for outstanding police work by both the department and members of the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges contained in its Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Department of Law WHITELOCK and MOLDOF Enforcement 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Post Office Box 1489 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 12489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the law enforcement officer's certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, based on two incidents of misconduct. A third incident alleged in the second unnumbered paragraph of paragraph two of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed at the beginning of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas R. Small was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer before the occurrence of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint was filed after a letter of complaint was received from a citizen in April, 1985. This delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission staff accounts for the delay in the filing of the complaint. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Albert Lee Taylor, his wife and their three small children, were leaving Miami in the family car which was being driven by Mr. Taylor. They were on their way to visit a sick relative in Lake Placid, Florida. Due to Mr. Taylor's work schedule they were unable to begin their trip until after midnight. The Taylors are black. The Respondent, Mr. Small, was a police officer for the City of Hialeah Gardens. He observed the Taylor vehicle as it passed his police car at the corner of N.W. 81st Street and l03rd Avenue. Mr. Small pulled Mr. Taylor's vehicle over because he believed there were deficiencies in the tag light on the car. When Mr. Small left the patrol car and walked to Mr. Taylor's car, he told Mr. Taylor to get out of the car and walk to the back of Taylor's vehicle, which Mr. Taylor did. While using his flashlight, Mr. Small observed a handgun setting in an area between the bucket seats of Taylor's automobile. Mr. Small took possession of the gun. Mr. Taylor carried the gun for protection during the family's travel. Mr. Small arrested Mr. Taylor and while doing so required him to place his hands on the hood of the police car to conduct a pat- down search of Mr. Taylor. The police car engine was running. The hood of the police car was hot to the touch which made it difficult for Mr. Taylor to take the position which Mr. Small required him to assume. Small told Mr. Taylor to spread his legs so that he could be patted-down. Mr. Taylor had recently had hip surgery to replace the ball joint of his hip with an artificial joint. This restricted his range of motion and any attempt to move the leg beyond its range resulted in severe pain. Mr. Taylor spread his legs as far as his hip condition would permit without pain. Mr. Small became dissatisfied with Mr. Taylor's stance and told him to spread his legs more. Mr. Taylor told Mr. Small that he had already spread his legs as far apart as he could with a pin in his hip. Mr. Taylor's wife, who was near by, told Mr. Small that she was a nurse, that Mr. Taylor had a pin in his hip, and that he could spread his legs no further apart. Mr. Small told Mrs. Taylor to "shut up" and shouted that he did not care about that. Mr. Small took his leg and placed it between Mr. Taylor's feet and, by pushing outward, forced Mr. Taylor's legs further apart. Mr. Taylor lost his balance and, as a result of the action, fell on the hood of the car. This caused Mr. Taylor severe pain at the time and resulted in increased pain and tenderness in the leg for several weeks. Mr. Small took Mr. Taylor to jail. Mr. Taylor was never convicted of any crime as the result of that arrest. The next incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on October 24, 1981, when Mr. Small was a uniformed officer for the City of Opa- Locka. Mr. Small had been sent to the scene of a disturbance near Rutland Street and 22nd Avenue. Rayfield Brown, Lloyd Johnson, and his two-year old daughter Fiona were there. Mr. Small and other officers arrived and Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were arrested and placed in Mr. Small's police car. After the arrest Mr. Small got into the police car to drive Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown to the police station. On the way to the police station, Mr. Small turned onto Rutland Street. Mr. Brown looked at the sidewalk on the street corner and saw Mr. Johnson's child, Fiona, standing alone on the sidewalk and crying. Mr. Johnson saw his daughter as they passed the corner and asked Mr. Small to stop the car and pick the child up. Mr. Johnson pleaded with Mr. Small to pick up his daughter so that she would not be left alone on the street but Mr. Small did not stop to attend to the child or take any other action to assure that another officer would take care of the child, thus leaving her abandoned in a urban residential area.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the law enforcement officer certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, 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 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2383 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The substance of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent No proposed findings of fact were submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter Kneski, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 626 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Jack Jordan is an applicant for licensure as a Detection of Deception Examiner. Jordan is over 18 years of age, has an excellent reputation for honesty, truthfulness, integrity, moral fitness, fair dealing, and professionalism in his work. Jordan has never been arrested or convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony. Jordan served honorably in the armed forces of the United States. Jordan has approximately one semester left to complete his four year degree, a law enforcement related subject. Jordan has 38 months' experience as an investigator or detective with the Flagstaff, Arizona, Police Department and Casselberry, Florida, Police Department. Jordan operated a detective agency, licensed by the State of Florida in the Orlando-Casselberry area. Jordan and his agency provided security at high school athletic events from 1972 through 1974. Jordan also provided security for eight (8) large rock concerts held in the Orlando area. In both capacities, Jordan was authorized to wear a weapon, supported local police agencies, and was authorized to and did make arrests. Because of their fine reputation, Jordan's agency was recommended by local police agencies. Jordan was required by his duties in providing security and crowd control at the events mentioned above to plan and execute security provisions at these functions. His work in this regard went beyond merely providing manpower at these events. His preparations often began three to four weeks before a major event, such as a rock concert.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency grant Jack Jordan a license as a Deception Detective Examiner in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Vossler, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack Jordan 2428 Locke Avenue Orlando, Florida 32808 Marvin Sirotowitz Bureau Chief of Records Examination Secretary of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Donna Bolton, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and dated August 9, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, certifying individuals for employment or appointment as a correctional officer and investigating complaints against individuals holding certificates as correctional officers in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 943.3195, Florida Statutes (2001). 1/ At the times pertinent to this matter, Respondent, Donna Bolton, was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer. In May 2002 Ms. Bolton was participating as a student in the State Officer Certification Examination (hereinafter referred to as the "SOCE") process at Miami-Dade Community College's School of Justice. Ms. Bolton was a student in a class designated as COLE 7, taught by Robert Lengel, Training Advisor. The class was part of the SOCE process. On the morning of May 9, 2002, Mr. Lengel gave the students in his COLE 7 class a quiz. The quiz consisted of having students, including Ms. Bolton, identify what ten codes that are routinely used by officers, codes 41 through 50, stood for. For example, students were to identify code 41 as standing for "sick or injured person." Another quiz had been given by Mr. Lengel in the COLE 7 class the prior week. That quiz required students to identify codes 31 through 40. Ms. Bolton had been absent on the date the quiz 2/ was given and, therefore, needed to make up the missed quiz. Therefore, Mr. Lengel asked Ms. Bolton if she would mind taking the quiz on codes 31 through 40 at the same time she took the quiz on codes 41 through 50. Ms. Bolton agreed and, therefore, on May 9, 2002, was given the quiz on both sets of codes. 3/ Although the quizzes taken by Ms. Bolton were part of the SOCE process, they were not the actual SOCE itself. As the students who were only required to take the quiz on codes 41 through 50 were completing their quiz, Regina C. Siedentopf, who was in charge of testing and curriculum and an adjunct part-time professor at Miami-Dade Community College, School of Justice, entered the room. 4/ After entering the room Ms. Siedentopf began preparing materials for a critique she was going to administer. Ms. Bolton was still taking the two quizzes when Ms. Siedentopf entered the room. Ms. Bolton had a small piece of paper between her legs, which Ms. Siedentopf noticed. Ms. Bolton was looking down at the piece of paper and Ms. Siedentopf saw Ms. Bolton do so. Ms. Siedentopf reported what she had seen to Mr. Lengel, who then asked everyone except Ms. Bolton and Ms. Siedentopf to leave the room. After the room was cleared, Ms. Bolton was asked to stand up, which she did. The piece of paper seen by Ms. Siedentopf was laying on the seat of Ms. Bolton's chair and Ms. Siedentopf retrieved it. Ms. Bolton's two quiz sheets were retrieved by Mr. Lengel. The piece of paper 5/ Ms. Bolton was looking at during the quiz was a small piece of lined paper with the explanation of what codes 31 through 50 stood for written on it. Ms. Bolton had been, therefore, looking at the answers to the quizzes she was engaged in taking. Although students are allowed to have the explanations for codes on a sheet of paper with them so that they can study the codes up until the moment of taking the quiz, students are not allowed to use these study sheets during the quiz. One of Ms. Bolton's quizzes retrieved by Mr. Lengel contained the correct explanation for codes 31 through 40 written on it. 6/ The second quiz contained the correct explanation for codes 41 through 46 and a partial explanation of code 47 written on it. Codes 48 through 50 were blank. 7/ When Mr. Lengel asked Ms. Bolton to give a written explanation of what had happened, Ms. Bolton essentially gave in the nature of "excuses" for her conduct, without explaining what that conduct was. 8/ After reading her statement, Mr. Lengel asked her to describe her actions with regard to the piece of paper that had been found. Ms. Bolton wrote: "I had the paper between my legs and I would look at it if I needed to." 9/ At hearing, Ms. Bolton admitted that she had the piece of paper with the answers to the two quizzes written on it located on the chair during the quiz. Denying that she had looked at the paper, however, Ms. Bolton explained that she had placed the paper on her chair because the paper, which she originally had in her pants pocket, irritated her. This explanation is unconvincing, given the size of the paper, and is, therefore, rejected. Her explanation also fails to explain why she looked at the paper while taking the quiz.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Ms. Bolton violated Section 943.1395(7); dismissing the allegation that she violated Rule 11B-30.009(3); dismissing the allegation that she violated Section 943.1395(6); and suspending her certification for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 200857, issued to her by Petitioner. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., on January 8, 2005, Corporal Andrew Markham of the City of Sebring Police Department was dispatched to the scene of a reported traffic crash at the intersection of Center Street and Northeast Lakeview Drive in Sebring, Florida. Corporal Markham found no vehicles in the intersection or any evidence of a crash there. Adjacent to the intersection, in the parking lot of the Sebring Public Library, Corporal Markham saw a car with its brake lights illuminated. He approached the car to determine whether the occupants could provide any information about the reported traffic accident. Corporal Markham observed that the front of the car was damaged from its collision with a low barrier wall that bordered the parking lot. The windshield was also damaged from what Corporal Markham concluded was the impact of the occupants' heads with the windshield when the car hit the barrier. When Corporal Markham approached the car, he saw Respondent exit the driver's seat and begin to walk away. Corporal Markham stopped Respondent to speak with her. Respondent had blood on her face, as did the other occupant of the car. At the time of the incident, Respondent denied being the driver of the car. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she was the driver. During his conversation with Respondent at the scene, Corporal Markham smelled the odor of alcohol on Respondent, noted that she was unsteady, and that her eyes were red. When Corporal Markham asked Respondent to take field sobriety tests, she continued to insist that she was not the driver of the car and would not take the tests. Based on his observations at the scene, his training, and his 13 years of experience as a police officer, Corporal Markham believed Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. Therefore, he arrested Respondent for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. Corporal Markham first transported Respondent to the Highlands County Medical Center to receive treatment for her injury. At the Medical Center, Respondent refused medical treatment, and Corporal Markham transported her to the Highlands County Jail. At the jail, Respondent was taken to the area where breath tests are conducted. Corporal Markham read Respondent the "Implied Consent" that informed her that if she refused to take the test, she could lose her driving privilege for up to one year. Respondent refused to take a breath test at the jail. Deputy Loran Danielson of the Highlands County Sheriff's Office was the officer on duty to conduct the breath tests at the jail. When Deputy Danielson met Respondent, he noted that her breath smelled strongly of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and she was unsteady on her feet. Based on his observations of Respondent, his training, and his 10 years of experience as a Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Danielson was of the opinion that Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. During the time that Deputy Danielson talked to Respondent, she told him that she had consumed "many" drinks, and if she took the breath test, it would show "I'm drunk." On September 27, 2004, less than four months before the incident at issue in this case, Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgement for an earlier driving under the influence (DUI) violation by Respondent. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she had "a few drinks" with friends at a bar just prior to her arrest, but she denied that she was intoxicated. Respondent said the crash occurred because she had taken her eyes off the road to speak to passengers in the back seat. Respondent said she refused to take the field sobriety tests or the breath test at the jail because she was scared. Respondent explained that one term of her probation for the prior DUI conviction was that she was not to drink alcohol. Respondent expressed remorse for her behavior on January 8, 2005, and claimed she has stopped drinking alcohol. Respondent stated that her career as a correctional officer is very important to her, and she requested another opportunity to prove she is a responsible person and capable correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Tena D. Grant failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and ordering that her certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 4th day of April, 2006.
