Findings Of Fact Question 13 on the application for unarmed guard license requests that an applicant list any and all arrests and dispositions thereof. The Petitioner responded to this inquiry by indicating that he had been arrested once in 1972 for being drunk, and that he was released. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner has been arrested more than 100 times on charges of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and breaking and entering. The Petitioner is a reformed alcoholic. He has had no difficulties with the law since approximately 1972, and he has totally abstained from alcoholic beverages for more than three years. The Petitioner now works closely with a religious group, and he has been awarded custody of his children from a previous marriage. It is apparent the Petitioner has reformed himself, and he is capable of working as an unarmed guard. The Petitioner's failure to reveal the extent of his law enforcement record did not result from a desire to falsify his application, or to fraudulently obtain a license, but rather from his desire to put his past behind him. His failure to fully answer the inquiry is not totally justified, but in view of the outstanding efforts that the Petitioner has made to rehabilitate himself, and the fact that he has worked effectively as an unarmed guard under a temporary permit for some months, the failure is not of overriding importance.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security guard license (license number D94-13786). He has been licensed since November 16, 1994. From April 3, 1996, through and including November 24, 1996, Respondent was employed as security guard by Delta Force Security (Delta), a business which provides security services. Ermelindo Onativia is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the owner and manager of Delta. Among Delta's clients during the period of Respondent's employment was Motor World, an automobile dealership in Plantation, Florida. On the weekend of November 23 and 24, 1996, Respondent's assignment was to provide security services at Motor World. His shift was to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 1996, and end at 5:00 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1996. Onativia met Respondent at Motor World at the beginning of Respondent's shift on November 23, 1996, and reminded Respondent to "punch the time clock" when he made his rounds at the dealership. After conversing with Respondent, Onativia left the dealership. Onativia returned to Motor World at 2:00 a.m. on November 24, 1996, to check on Respondent. Respondent, however, was not there. He had left his assigned post without obtaining Onativia's permission to do so. Onativia remained at the dealership until 5:00 a.m. At no time during the period that he was at the dealership did he see or hear from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing him on probation for a period of one year, subject to such conditions as the Department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1998.
Findings Of Fact In 1976 the Petitioner was arrested and charged with the crime Aggravated Assault. No formal charges were filed, and he was neither tried nor convicted of the charges. The Petitioner failed to reflect this arrest in his application for license. The fact of the arrest would not constitute grounds for denying the Petitioner's application for an unarmed guard license. His failure to report it was apparently due to confusion on his own part. The evidence would not support a conclusion that the failure was willful.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed an act of violence in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Respondent was licensed as an unarmed guard and held a license to bear a firearm pursuant to license numbers D91-11148 and G91-11148, respectively. Respondent objected to any disciplinary action against his "G" license on the ground that the "G" license is not at issue. Only the "D" license is at issue in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The parties further stipulated that Respondent was prosecuted and found not guilty of battery in a criminal trial based on facts substantially similar to those at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Michael Friend and Respondent were both employed as security guards by Liberty Security. Mr. Friend and Respondent did not get along and had a history of confrontation. Liberty Security had experienced problems with doors not being secured by the guard who regularly patrolled the Miracle City Mall. The regular guard apparently failed to properly secure the doors when closing each night. Mr. Friend was asked by his supervisor at Liberty Security to observe the closing procedures followed by the guard at the Miracle City Mall and to make sure the doors were properly secured. On May 9, 1992, the regular guard was unable to attend his duties, and Respondent was asked by his supervisor at Liberty Security to fill in for the regular guard. When Respondent was closing on the evening of May 9, 1992, he agreed to let two females into the Mall to retrieve some expensive jewelry one of them left in the Mall. Afterward, Respondent agreed to give Ms. Jessica McCandless, a third female, a ride home. Respondent left the security office to let the two females into the Mall. While Respondent was away, Mr. Friend entered the security office pursuant to his instructions to observe and inspect the closing procedures used at the Mall. When Respondent returned to the security office, Mr. Friend precipitated a confrontation. The confrontation continued at Mr. Friend's persistence and escalated outside of the security office. Outside of the security office, the confrontation escalated into verbal obscenities and minor physical incidents. Respondent and Ms. McCandless got into Respondent's car. Respondent started his car and backed away from Mr. Friend. When Respondent put his car in drive and attempted to drive forward, Mr. Friend grabbed Respondent through the driver's window. Respondent stopped the car and Mr. Friend rolled from the driver's side of the car to the hood of the car, landing on his feet. Respondent stopped the car and backed the car away from Mr. Friend again. Respondent put his car in forward, drove the car in a figure eight and headed straight toward Mr. Friend at a rate of speed fast enough to collide with Mr. Friend. The front of Respondent's car struck Mr. Friend. Mr. Friend went up on the hood, rolled off, and fell to the ground. Mr. Friend did not land on his feet. The impact cracked the window of the car. The confrontation that precipitated the act of violence committed by Respondent was precipitated and escalated by Mr. Friend. Respondent attempted to avoid Mr. Friend, avoid the incident, and extricate himself and Ms. McCandless from the scene several times. After every reasonable attempt to avoid the situation, Respondent committed the act of violence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of an act of violence in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $1,000 pursuant to Section 493.6118(2)(c). RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1250 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Nicholas Lessey, Esquire 423 Brevard Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent entered a store, not in connection with his duties as a security guard, while openly wearing a firearm, in violation of Sections 493.315(2) and (3) and 493.319(1)(p), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent held the following licenses: Class "B" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman Agency license number B-88-00055; Class "MB"' Watchman, Guard or Patrolman Agency Manager license number MB-88-00083; Class "D" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman license number D-89-01736; and Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit number G-89-00216. In September, 1989, Respondent provided security services to about six of the approximately 41 merchants located at a small "L"-shaped strip mall located on Saxon Boulevard in Orange City, Florida. These services were provided pursuant to contracts between the individual merchants and Respondent. The security services supplied by Respondent required him to patrol common areas, such as sidewalks and parking areas. Entrances to all of the stores faced the unenclosed mall's parking lot. One of the merchants at the strip mall with whom Respondent had no contract was Lauri Black, who owned and operated a store known as "Florida Scene." This store, which opened for business on or shortly after September 22, 1989, is located at the end of a long line of stores and faces directly into the parking lot serving all of the stores. The closest store that Respondent protects is relatively close to Florida Scene, about five stores away. Ms. Black also operated a similar store in nearby Deland. Respondent had previously visited her to solicit security business. Based on prior conversations, Respondent reasonably believed that he might successfully obtain the business for the new store in Orange City. On Monday, September 19, 1989, at about 3:25 p.m., Respondent, who had just gone on duty, entered Ms. Black's store for the purpose of soliciting security business. At the time, he was in his normal security guard uniform and was wearing a handgun, which remained holstered at all relevant times. Ms. Black did not ask Respondent to leave or to remove his gun. In fact, she was not intimidated by the fact that he was armed. However, upon his entrance into her store, Ms. Black, without warning or prior objection, excused herself and contacted the police. At the hearing, Ms. Black testified that she had been "roped into this." "This" apparently refers to her participation that day in an ongoing dispute between Respondent, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the management and certain mall merchants that is not otherwise relevant to the present case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. 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 this 16th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings: adopted. rejected as irrelevant. adopted except that Florida Scene was not open for business until after September 22, 1989. adopted in substance. adopted. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1-3. adopted. adopted in substance. adopted in substance. adopted as to Respondent being on duty. Whether he was in proper performance of his duties is rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 T. Hulen Ray, Attorney 118 WeSt. New York Ave. Deland, FL 32720
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1996, Petitioner revoked Respondent's Class "D" security officer license number D95-12548 and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in security services and to return to Petitioner Respondent's license. That Final Order certifies that a copy was mailed to Respondent that day. Respondent did not return his license to Petitioner. On November 1, 1996, Fred Speaker, the investigator supervisor in Petitioner's West Palm Beach office, went to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent asserted that he did not know where his license was. Respondent did not produce his license. On November 12 Speaker returned to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent was not there, and Respondent's wife did not produce Respondent's license. On April 17, 1997, while Speaker and investigator Jack D'Ambrosio were checking security posts and licenses, they encountered Respondent who was on duty at the gate house of a private community. They asked Respondent for his company identification and his guard license. Respondent produced both documents for their inspection. Petitioner's employees did not take Respondent's license that evening since they wished first to verify if the license were still revoked before taking Respondent's license from him. Sometime subsequent to that date, D'Ambrosio saw Respondent in Petitioner's office and again asked Respondent for his license. Respondent refused to give his license to D'Ambrosio.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Giordano, pro se 3655 Coelebs Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be issued a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. Upon certification of his employer that his duties require him to be armed, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency issue the Petitioner a Class "G" Armed Guard License. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the agency adopt a rule restricting all guard agencies from utilizing armed guards where the nature of their assigned duties does not warrant the use of a firearm to carry out their assignment. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, 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. Galdwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 John F. Cuddy, Esquire 333 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against the Petitioner on the basis of age and/or disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Brown was born on November 26, 1932. At the times material to this proceeding, he was licensed in Florida as a security guard. Mr. Brown was hired as a security guard by SSA Security in November 1998, when he was 65 years of age, by Robert Chambers. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Chambers was SSA Security's district manager for Broward County and Miami-Dade County, Florida. Mr. Brown resigned his employment with SSA Security in December 2000 and began working for Avis Rent-A-Car. He left his position with SSA Security because it did not pay any benefits; he received full benefits as an employee of Avis Rent- A-Car. In or around December 2000, Mr. Brown was fitted with a pacemaker because of a heart condition.4 When Mr. Brown lost his job with Avis Rent-A-Car, he applied to SSA Security for employment, and Mr. Chambers re-hired him as a security guard in January 2003. At the time, of his re-employment by SSA Security, Mr. Brown was 70 years of age. Even though Mr. Brown had a pacemaker to regulate his heartbeat in 2003, he was at all times capable of performing all of the essential functions of a security guard and, in fact, wanted to return to employment as a security guard because he could do the job notwithstanding his heart condition. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Brown's direct supervisor was Owen James, the area manager with SSA Security, who reported to Mr. Chambers. Mr. Brown also was supervised by SSA Security's on-duty road supervisors during the time he was actually working. On October 3, 2004, Mr. Brown signed an Application for Employment with SSA Security, and he was provided with a copy of the SSA Security Employee Rules and Regulations. He acknowledged receipt of the rules and regulations and of the Security Officers Handbook with his signature, dated October 3, 2004.5 The introductory paragraph of the Employee Rules and Regulations stated that SSA Security employees were to carry a copy of the Security Officers Handbook with him or her when on duty and advised the employees that they "could be subject to discipline, suspension or discharge" if he or she violated any of the employee rules.6 The first rule included in the Employee Rules and Regulations prohibited "[l]eaving a posted duty prior to being properly relieved." It is Mr. Chambers's policy to terminate the employment of persons who abandon their posts, that is, who leave their posts without being properly relieved, and he terminated at least 10 employees for abandoning their posts between 2007 and 2009. At the times material to this proceeding, SSA Security provided security services at several United Parcel Service facilities, including the United Parcel Service Sheridan ("UPS Sheridan") facility and at the United Parcel Service Davie ("UPS Davie") facility. At the times material to this proceeding, the UPS Sheridan facility was a "UPS hub" that operated 24 hours a day, and SSA Security provided security for the facility 24 hours per day. The UPS Sheridan facility is categorized as a "soft target" because, if anyone got into the facility, he or she could steal UPS uniforms and trucks and could, thereby, gain access to many businesses and residences. The UPS Davie facility housed employees working in customer service and administration, and the facility closed every day. At one time, Mr. Brown was assigned to both the UPS Sheridan facility and the UPS Davie facility. He worked at the UPS Sheridan facility from 10:00 p.m. until 3:30 a.m., when he left and went to the UPS Davie facility, where he worked from 4:00 a.m. until approximately 5:30 a.m. During his time at the UPS Davie facility, Mr. Brown escorted the employees working at the facility to their vehicles, and, when the last employee was escorted to his or her vehicle, Mr. Brown was free to go home. Mr. Brown was not relieved by another security guard at the UPS Davie facility. In or about January 2007, the UPS Davie facility was closed, and Mr. Brown was assigned to work at the UPS Sheridan facility from 12:00 a.m. until 4:00 a.m.7 His duties at the UPS Sheridan facility after his work hours changed, and specifically in June 2008, were to patrol the perimeter of the facility and ensure that the facility was not breached. Mr. Brown did not enter the building as part of his duties because, prior to 4:00 a.m., the building was locked. At 4:00 a.m., a UPS supervisor would unlock the building and another SSA Security security guard was scheduled to come on duty. This security guard’s duties were to secure an entryway into the building and scan employees coming in and out of the facility as they passed through a metal detector. SSA Security’s procedure at the UPS Sheridan facility required Mr. Brown to wait at his post at the facility until the security guard assigned the 4:00 a.m.-to-8:00 a.m. shift arrived. According to procedure, if this security guard was late, Mr. Brown was to call either SSA Security's 24-hour dispatch, which was reached by calling the local SSA Security office, or the local on-duty road supervisor and a relief officer would be sent to the UPS Sheridan facility to take over the post. Mr. Brown was trained in this procedure by the road supervisor on duty at the time Mr. Brown began working the 12:00 a.m.-to-4:00 a.m. shift at the UPS Sheridan facility. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Brown had a routine doctor's appointment. The doctor told Mr. Brown after the examination that he needed to go to the hospital that night because of his heart condition. Mr. Brown called the SSA Security office at approximately 4:50 p.m. on May 27, 2008, and spoke with Jeanine Williams, who was a receptionist. Mr. Brown explained to Ms. Williams that he was being hospitalized and could not report to work because of his "regular heart condition."8 This telephone conversation lasted approximately three minutes. Mr. Brown did not speak with Mr. Chambers or with his direct supervisor, Mr. James, on May 27, 2008, and he did not inform either of them of his heart condition in June 2008. He did not do so because he believed he had advised Mr. Chambers of his heart condition in 2000, when he was fitted with the pacemaker. Mr. Chambers has no recollection of Mr. Brown having told him of a heart condition in 2000, and Mr. Chambers was not able to locate anything in Mr. Brown's personnel file related to such a medical condition. Mr. Brown was discharged from the hospital on June 2, 2008. He did not submit any documentation of his hospitalization to SSA Security or provide Mr. Chambers with any explanation of the reason for his absence from work. Upon his discharge from the hospital, Mr. Brown had minimal temporary restrictions on his activities as a result of his heart condition. The primary restriction, as described by Mr. Brown, was that he was unable to do any lifting. He was, however, able to perform the essential functions of his job as a security guard. Mr. Brown reported to his post at the UPS Sheridan facility on the morning of June 4, 2008, at his normal time of 12:00 a.m. His shift ended at 4:00 a.m., at which time the SSA Security security guard who manned the post inside the facility was to report for work. Mr. Brown knew that another security guard was to begin work at the UPS Sheridan facility at 4:00 a.m., but, when the security guard had not arrived by approximately 4:10 a.m., Mr. Brown left the facility and went home. Mr. Brown had the telephone numbers of both the SSA Security 24-hour dispatch service and the SSA Security on-duty road supervisor, but he did not notify anyone at SSA Security that he was leaving or that the new security guard had not reported for duty at the UPS Sheridan facility. Mr. Brown also did not notify anyone at the UPS Sheridan facility that he was leaving the facility unguarded because the security guard assigned to work the 4:00 a.m. shift had not yet arrived. At approximately 7:30 a.m., Mr. Brown received a call from Captain Linda Webb, the SSA Security road supervisor responsible for the UPS Sheridan facility on the morning of June 4, 2008, and Mr. Brown's immediate supervisor during his shift on June 4, 2008. Captain Webb asked Mr. Brown where he was, and he replied that he was at home. Captain Webb asked Mr. Brown if he left his post before the other security guard had arrived,9 and Mr. Brown responded that it was his understanding that he did not need to be relieved at his post at the UPS Sheridan facility and that had never been relieved at that post. Although Mr. Brown had been told by a supervisor that he could leave his post at the UPS Davie facility without being relieved, no one in a supervisory position with SSA Security told Mr. Brown that he could leave his post at the UPS Sheridan facility at 4:00 a.m., regardless of whether the security guard assigned to work the 4:00 a.m. shift had arrived at the facility.10 Captain Webb wrote a Personnel Action Form summarizing the incident, which was categorized as Mr. Brown's having "abandoning the post." At approximately 2:30 p.m. on June 4, 2008, Mr. James called Mr. Brown and asked why he had left his post at the UPS Sheridan facility without being relieved by the guard who was assigned to the post inside the building. Mr. Brown stated that he was never relieved at his post at the UPS Sheridan facility. Mr. James told Mr. Brown not to return to the post at the UPS Sheridan facility but to come into the SSA Security office. Mr. Brown believed that Mr. James wanted to "get rid" of him.11 Mr. Brown spoke with Mr. Chambers on the telephone on June 4, 2008, and Mr. Chambers told him that, in directing Mr. Brown not to return to his post at the UPS Sheridan facility, Mr. James was following the instructions given to him by Mr. Chambers. Mr. Chambers met with Mr. Brown on June 5, 2008, at his office, and they discussed the incident that occurred on June 4, 2008. Mr. Chambers asked him why he left his post at the UPS Sheridan facility, and Mr. Brown answered that he had a doctor's appointment at 9:00 a.m. on June 4, 2008. Mr. Chambers asked if Mr. Brown had called a supervisor or the dispatch number before he left, and Mr. Brown stated that he had not. Mr. Chambers then advised Mr. Brown that he was terminating his employment with SSA Security. Mr. Chambers's decision to terminate Mr. Brown is memorialized on the Personnel Action Form prepared on June 4, 2008, by Captain Webb, which Mr. Chambers signed and dated June 5, 2008. When Mr. Brown turned in his uniform, Mr. James gave him a copy of the Personnel Action Report prepared by Captain Webb, and Mr. James asked Mr. Brown if he had anything to add. Mr. Brown responded that he did not, and he left the SSA Security office. Mr. Brown was replaced by a person who was 53 years of age. Summary The evidence presented by Mr. Brown is not sufficient to establish that he was the subject of discrimination on the basis of age when he was terminated from his employment at SSA Security. Not only did the evidence fail to establish that age was the motivating factor in his termination, the evidence failed to establish that age was even a consideration when he was terminated. The evidence presented by Mr. Brown is likewise not sufficient to establish that he was the subject of discrimination on the basis of disability. The evidence presented by Mr. Brown did not establish that he was disabled because the evidence failed to establish that he was substantially impaired in any major activity of daily life, that he had a record of an impairment, or that he was regarded by Mr. Chambers as having an impairment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Alfred S. Brown. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 27th day of May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner seeks licensure as both an armed and an unarmed security guard ("F" and "G" licenses). In support of his applications he submitted the required health certificate for a "Statewide Gun Permit" as well as his "Certificate of Firearms Proficiency" and the required affidavit attesting to his character and to his experience as a security guard. A "Temporary Gun License," No. 18279, was issued to the Petitioner on August 25, 1980. On October 27, 1980, the Respondent ultimately, by letter of that date, denied his application for licensure and informed him of his right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely elected to exercise that right and to adduce evidence supportive of his petition. The grounds for the denial were respectively that there was a substantial connection between an alleged lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner and the business for which he sought the license and that he fraudulently or willfully misrepresented his status in answering questions on the applications specifically the question regarding his prior arrest record. Additionally, the application was denied on the grounds that the Petitioner had in the past been found guilty of a crime which directly related to the business for which he seeks the license. The Petitioner, in answering the question regarding past arrests, admitted that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1959. The Petitioner did not complete the answer regarding the disposition of that arrest, but candidly admitted at the hearing that he was confined in the state prison at Raiford, Florida for five years after being convicted of armed robbery and also candidly admitted a record for various other petty offenses in 1941, 1945 and 1946, none of which three incidents involved a sentence of longer than three months. On December 23, 1947, in Bartow, Polk County, Florida he was sentenced to three years in the state prison at Raiford for grand larceny. He was discharged from confinement on May 4, 1950. The uncontroverted testimony of the Petitioner at the hearing established that, although he was convicted and sentenced for grand larceny, the articles which he was convicted of stealing were: a watermelon, a cinnamon roll and a can of sardines. The Petitioner's only other conviction and confinement occurred in 1959 when he was convicted for armed robbery. The Petitioner served out this sentence and was discharged and has had no altercations with the law since that time. Give the basis upon which the application was denied, some elaboration of the circumstances surrounding that armed robbery conviction are appropriate. The Petitioner's stepson was employed by a trucking company as a driver and periodically made collections of large amounts of cash from freight customers of the truck line. Due to their dire financial circumstances at the time the Petitioner, his stepson, and the Petitioner's wife apparently entered into an arrangement whereby the stepson would alert them of the day and time on which he would be making collections of large amounts of cash so that the trio could convert the company receipts to their own use. According to the Petitioner's uncontroverted testimony, the Petitioner, armed with a lead pipe instead of a gun, as the charge had indicated, in conspiracy with his stepson and wife staged an apparent robbery to cover the actual theft of the company's funds. In any event, the trio were apprehended and in the subsequent negotiations or the trial, the Petitioner elected to assume sole responsibility for the "robbery" in order to protect the freedom and record of his wife and stepson. Consequently, the Petitioner was sentenced to five years for armed robbery and served out his sentence. The Petitioner thus established with credible, uncontroverted testimony that this armed robbery conviction actually did not stem from the forceable taking of the property of another with a firearm, but rather was a staged, "phony" robbery to cover a simple theft of the funds in question. The Hearing Officer is impressed with the obvious candor and forthrightness of the Petitioner in describing the events surrounding this and his other miscreant conduct in his distant past and with his continued remorse at its having occurred. Since his release from the state penitentiary in 1962, Mr. Walker has had no legal difficulties whatever. Per the last fifteen years or so he has been employed as a security guard for various security agencies in the Dade County area, primarily as an unarmed security guard, but serving at least one stint for an agency as an armed security guard, apparently by local authority. The Petitioner presented evidence at the hearing of a previously valid unarmed security guard license he has held, as well as the temporary gun license issued August 28, 1980. He also presented evidence in the form of identification cards and a badge establishing his employment as a security guard in the past, pursuant to Chapter 493, by a number of private security firms in the Dade County area. He has worked in a number of large department stores and warehouses wherein valuable merchandise was stored or kept and has never been involved in any incident involving theft of such goods. Escambia County recently saw fit to employ him temporarily as a security guard at Pensacola High School. He has had good working relationships with law enforcement authorities in his capacity as a security guard both in Dade and Escambia Counties and offered to bring to the hearing members of law enforcement agencies and the clergy in both counties to attest to his good conduct since his release from prison, nineteen years ago. The Petitioner freely acknowledged at the hearing that his answer to Question 13 on his applications did not disclose his entire arrest record, however, he states that he does not write well and had the secretary at the security firm where he was working at the time, in Dade County, fill out the applications for him. He maintains that he told the secretary all information about his criminal record and assumed that she had put it down, but signed the application hurriedly because he had to report for work and signed it as he was leaving the firm's office. He repeatedly demonstrated at the hearing that he had nothing to hide regarding his criminal record and was genuinely remorseful for its existence. He described in detail the various convictions and stipulated to the evidence of his criminal record which the Respondent offered. The Petitioner also demonstrated that during those times when he has worked as an armed security guard, primarily in Dade County, he has never had to use or display his gun to anyone and only wishes the use of a gun now for his own protection, since in his experience at his last job with the Ford Detective Agency in Dade County, the position became too dangerous for a security guard to occupy without having a firearm for protection. The Petitioner is now in his sixties and due to a slight heart condition is living entirely on Social Security disability income. He expressed the desire to go hack into security guard work in order to provide enough income to support himself, his wife and his young grandson whom he is helping to rear and who accompanied him to the hearing. He obviously has a keen desire to be able to support himself and his family without, as he put it, having to "live on the County" or the public treasury. He feels that security guard work is a duty he can readily fulfill despite his age since lie is of otherwise robust health, has substantial experience as a security guard, and the job is not a strenuous one. He has job offers with the St. Regis Paper Company and the Exxon Oil Company as well as the local newspaper. He is now working part-time collecting money for the local newspaper which is a dangerous job in his view in that he sometimes carries large amounts of cash in "high crime areas" of the county. He feels that he needs the right to possess a firearm for his own protection. Since his release from prison Mr. Walker has obviously undergone a profound change in his way of life away from repetitive confrontations with the law. He has become an exemplary family man, a church man and a Mason. He does not use alcohol or drugs whatever. He demonstrates significant independence and responsibility of character at his rather advanced age in wanting to obtain another job to support is family, rather than relying on relatives or the public treasury for subsistence.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the arguments of the parties it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, granting the Petitioner's application for licensure, both as an armed and an unarmed security guard. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Room 1801, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Curley Walker Post Office Box 619 Century, Florida 32535
Findings Of Fact The facts as set forth in the Stipulation above are incorporated within the Findings of Fact in this hearing. The applicant is now employed by Central Security Patrol. His supervisor in his employment as an unarmed guard has known Croft for 15 months. His supervisor's primary association and knowledge of Croft is job-related. Croft's supervisor considers Croft dependable, a good worker, and well liked by those who come in contact with him. Croft has had no problems with absenteeism from his job. Croft's further advancement within the company with which he is now employed is dependent upon acquisition of a Class G, armed guard license. Croft's reputation in the community was testified to by two of his neighbors who had known Croft for three to four years. Croft's reputation in the neighborhood is good. The neighbors, who observed Croft daily, testified to Croft's habits. Croft does not drink and lives quietly with his wife of four years. Croft works in his yard and at his job. Croft testified in his own behalf. Croft had a series of arrests and convictions arising out of his heavy drinking between 1963 and 1969. Croft was then arrested for driving under the influence and a moving traffic violation in May of 1975. In October of 1975, he was arrested for homicide, assault to commit murder, and discharge of a firearm. These charges were dropped. Croft stated that these charges were an outgrowth of his heavy drinking. Croft was married approximately four years ago and has not drunk alcoholic beverages for the past two years. Although Croft does not admit to alcoholism, he recognizes that his drinking was the cause of his problems and has ceased drinking. Concerning the gap in his arrest record between 1969 and 1975, Croft stated that he had drunk heavily during that period but had not been arrested. Croft's supervisor testified concerning the company's policy concerning issuance and control of firearms. The company which employs Croft owns and controls all employee weapons to the extent that the company purchases any private weapon owned by an employee which the employee wishes to use on the job. Only weapons originally owned by an employee may be retained in the employee's possession and removed off a security post. All other weapons owned by the company must be retained on a security post and transferred from one guard shift to the next.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant, James Robert Croft, be issued a Class G, armed guard license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James R. Croft 3545 Marlboro Avenue Jacksonville, Florida
