The Issue The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character by falsifying official records of the Florida Highway Patrol with intent to mislead her supervisors in violation of Section 943.1395(5), (6), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Between March 13, 1987, and July 9, 1987, Respondent was a law enforcement officer certified by Petitioner. All events incident to the findings of fact in this Recommended Order occurred while Respondent was working in the ordinary course of her employment as a Florida Highway Patrol trooper in Miami, Florida. On April 7, 1987, Respondent stopped motorist Donald McCarron for driving a vehicle with an expired tag. Respondent issued Mr. McCarron a correction card for driving a vehicle with an expired tag but did not issue motorist McCarron a written warning. Respondent claimed both a correction card and a written warning as work activity in her weekly report to her supervisor. On June 23, 1987, Respondent stopped motorist James Merklein for speeding. Respondent issued Mr. Merklein a citation for speeding. Mr. Merklein did not have his vehicle registration in the car. Respondent verbally warned Mr. Merklein to carry his vehicle registration in the car, but did not issue motorist Merklein a written warning. Respondent claimed both a citation and a written warning as work activity in her weekly report to her supervisor. The existence of incidents in addition to those involving motorists Merklein and McCarron was not established by competent and substantial evidence. One or two incidents in which Respondent failed to give correction cards and written warnings to motorists is not clear and convincing evidence of lack of good moral character. 2/ Respondent admitted to Lieutenant John C. Baker that she "on occasion" writes warnings and cards, leaves them in her patrol car seat, and forgets to give them to the violator. Such occasions occur only when Respondent has given a motorist a lengthy explanation. The record does not reflect that Respondent admitted to additional incidents alleged to have been documented by Sergeants Alvarez and Pelton. Instead, in the words of Lieutenant Baker, "she did not deny the allegations in the complaint." Florida Highway Patrol trooper work activity, in the form of claimed written warnings and correction cards issued to motorists, form a significant portion of a trooper's report of weekly work performed. In order for a trooper to legitimately claim credit for written warnings or correction cards, the trooper must have given a copy of the document to the motorist in question. A Florida Highway Patrol supervisor, in formulating a subordinate performance evaluation for a given period, compiles statistics of the trooper's work activity and utilizes these statistics to rate the trooper's work performance. Evaluations form the basis of Florida Highway Patrol decisions concerning trooper retention, promotion, and salary increases. During the Respondent's June, 1986, to June, 1987, Florida Highway Patrol work evaluation cycle, her work activity, as reported by her, was considered by the Florida Highway Patrol to be in the "low satisfactory" range. Discounting the two incidents established by clear and convincing evidence in which Respondent claimed written warning and correction card work activity on her weekly report but failed to give the written warnings and correction cards to the motorist would not have caused her work activity to fall below satisfactory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent not guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of March, 1990.
Findings Of Fact In November of 1960 the Petitioner, Frankie L. Mills, became employed by the Florida Highway Patrol, and he was a member of the Florida Highway Patrol Pension System (Chapter 321, Florida Statutes). On approximately December 1, 1970, the Petitioner transferred from the Florida Highway Patrol Pension System, and he became a member of the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes). In June of 1976, the Petitioner resigned from the Florida Highway Patrol to run for Sheriff of Okaloosa County. He was elected, and began his position as Sheriff in January of 1977. In the election of 1980 the Petitioner was not re- elected as Sheriff of Okaloosa County. As a result, his term of office as Sheriff ended on January 6, 1981, and the Petitioner vacated the office of Sheriff of Okaloosa County. The Petitioner did not resign from his position as Sheriff of Okaloosa County. His termination from the office of Sheriff was occasioned by the expiration of his elected term of office as of January 6, 1981.. During the time the Petitioner served as Sheriff of Okaloosa County, until January 6, 1981, he was a special risk member of the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes). In August of 1981, the Petitioner became employed as a deputy sheriff of Gulf County. This employment qualified him as a special risk member of the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes). The Petitioner has been employed as a deputy sheriff in Gulf County since August, 1981, and he is so employed at present. Between January 6, 1981, and at least August 11 981, the Petitioner was not employed by an "employer" as this term is defined in Section 121.021(10), Florida Statutes, and during this time he was absent from the payroll of any such "employer." Between January 6, 1981, and August of 1981, the Petitioner was not a "state law enforcement officer" as this term is used in Section 121.021(38), Florida Statutes, and Rules 22B- 2.002(5)(e) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. Between January 6, 1981, and August of 1981, the Petitioner had a break in his continuous service under the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, including Section 121.021.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter its Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Frankie L. Mills, had a break in his continuous service in the special risk category of the Florida Retirement System during the period of time he was not employed as a law enforcement officer between January and August, 1981. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 26th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert Scott Cox, Eq. P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 Burton M. Michaels, Esq. 2639 North Monroe street Suite 207, Building C Tallahassee, FL 32303 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 in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings are not in consecutively numbered paragraphs, but the unnumbered paragraphs will be considered to be consecutively numbered. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but an argument of law. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-9. Accepted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Thomas K. Morgan was a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol and was certified as a law enforcement officer by Respondent. On April 28, 1984, Brenda Liles, a 22-year-old woman, was returning to her home in Ruskin when she ran out of gas and pulled off on the shoulder of U.S. 41 in a rural area. Before leaving from her departure point, she realized her gas gauge was on empty and she called her father to ask him to come look for her if she was not home in 15 minutes. Trooper Morgan saw the AMC Concord parked along U.S. 41 and pulled up behind the car. Miss Liles was in the car with the doors locked and the windows rolled up. When Respondent approached her car he shined his flashlight inside the car to look for weapons or anything suspicious. Seeing the trooper, Miss Liles lowered the window to tell him she had run out of gas but her father would be along momentarily. Respondent stayed alongside Miss Liles' car and they held a general conversation for several minutes before Mr. Liles arrived. Miss Liles was dressed in shorts and tee shirt. When her father arrived he found his daughter calm and he suggested she get into his pickup truck and he would return for the AMC the following day. Respondent told Liles that he (Morgan) had a gas can he could borrow to get gas and the car could then be driven away rather than be left alongside the highway all night. Liles took the gas can and departed. He planned to stop by his home for a funnel but, even so, the round-trip for gas was expected to take no more than ten minutes. When Liles left, Respondent continued talking to Miss Liles and suddenly started shining his flashlight over her body and said, "Pussy, pussy, let me see that pussy," or "I want that pussy; open it up," or words of similar import. Miss Liles initially did not understand him and asked him what he had said. He repeated the words while shining his flashlight over her body. She immediately rolled up the window through which they had been talking (the doors had remained locked) and became very frightened and started crying. Respondent returned to his patrol car and started filling out reports. Approximately five minutes later Mr. Liles returned with the gas, saw his daughter was crying, and that she was visibly upset. After putting gas in the car, he returned the gas can to Respondent and asked his name and badge number. When the AMC was started Liles told his daughter to follow him and he drove to the sheriff's substation in Ruskin. Although Liles did not ask his daughter what had happened, he sensed it had something to do with Respondent. Upon arrival at the Sheriff's Office they encountered Trooper Donna L. Middleton who was told by Liles that they wanted to make a complaint. At this time Miss Liles was either still crying or showed visible evidence of having been crying and was quite upset. Trooper Middleton took father and daughter into an office to inquire as to the nature of the complaint. Miss Liles was having some difficulty getting the words out so Mr. Liles excused himself and went outside. Trooper Middleton gave Miss Liles complaint forms and asked her to write down what had happened. She assisted Miss Liles in the correct spelling of some of the words. As soon as she realized the nature of the complaint, Middleton called her supervisor to come to the Ruskin office. The Lileses remained at the substation until the then-Corporal Shriver arrived approximately one hour after the Lileses had arrived. At this time Miss Liles still gave the appearance of being upset and of earlier crying. Shriver took custody of the statement and the Lileses returned home. The complaint was duly processed by the Florida Highway Patrol, referred to the investigation branch, and investigated by Lieutenant Brown. Brown interviewed all the parties above named including Respondent. Following this investigation Respondent was dismissed from his employment with the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent presented his wife and a female friend of his wife to testify that they had never heard Respondent make comments about the anatomical parts of the female body, and that such comments would be inconsistent with their impression of Respondent's character. In his testimony Respondent confirmed all of the testimony of the Lileses except Respondent's use of the language complained of, which he denied. Although all witnesses had testified that the weather was mild on the evening in question, Respondent testified Miss Liles rolled up her window because she was cold and he then returned to the patrol car. Respondent also testified that he had always been interested in work as a law enforcement officer and was very proud of his position as a trooper in the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles E. Nelson, was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 23, 1990, and issued certificate number 99509. Based on what Officer Nelson told a fellow officer, he had previously worked in law enforcement for 20 years in Toledo, Ohio. On December 12, 1992, Sergeant Charles Anthony Wall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Dale Wayne Vermillion, a reserve police officer, responded to a call, reporting that a man and a woman were fighting near a convenience store. Officer John Michael McKim also responded to the call, in a separate vehicle, to serve as Sergeant Wall's backup. Tommy Goode and Teresa Pickens were found in a wooded area near the convenience store and were arrested for disorderly intoxication. Because Goode and Pickens were arguing with each other, they were placed in separate police cars. Goode was handcuffed and locked in the back of Sergeant Wall's caged police car, while Pickens was placed in Officer McKim's car. While Sergeant Wall was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle completing certain paperwork, including an arrest docket, Officer Nelson arrived in a third vehicle. From the back of Sergeant Wall's car, Goode was yelling offensive comments to all of the officers. After Officer Nelson, who is Black, approached the car, Goode included racial epithets, including the word "nigger," in his continuing offensive comments. Officer Nelson responded to Goode's taunting by saying words to the effect: "I'm not like the rest of these people, I don't need my job. I'll come back and get you." Officer Nelson unlocked the back door of Sergeant Wall's car, leaned in, grabbed, choked, and shook Goode. The reserve officer who could see Goode's face during the attack described it as follows: And when Officer Nelson went into the vehicle, I was standing looking in through the window, and Officer Nelson grabbed Mr. Goode around the neck with his hand and was choking him to a point that I had not seen a human's eyes extend out of their eye sockets so far, so he was choking him pretty hard and kind of shaking him back and forth. Transcript p. 24 Because of Officer Nelson's size and strength, Sergeant Wall needed the assistance of Officer McKim to pull him off Goode and out of the car. In the following excerpt of his testimony, Sergeant Wall described his response to Officer Nelson's actions: So I told him, you know, hey, "What are you doing, get off of him," something to that effect. And that didn't work, so I began to try to pull him off, me and Officer McKim. And it took great effort to get him off, and I don't know if I actually -- he let go, or the effort that it took to pull him off that got him off, I just remember that when he came out of the backseat, that he was like a wild man. I mean, I thought at one point he was going to jump on us. Transcript p. 10 Goode had red marks on his neck when Sergeant Wall transported him to jail. The Sheriff's Department initiated both criminal and administrative investigations of Officer Nelson's attack on Goode. Officer Nelson was first reassigned to a desk job and, ultimately, left the department. Officer Sandra M. Pike participated in the internal investigation of the incident by the Sheriff's Office. When she interviewed Officer Nelson, he told Officer Pike that he lost control and that he intended to shut Goode up. The force used by Officer Nelson was unnecessary. Goode was not posing a threat or trying to escape. The conduct of Officer Nelson constitutes a criminal offense and demonstrates a failure to maintain good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, revoke certificate number 99509, issued on February 23, 1990, to Charles E. Nelson. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Amy J. Bardill, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire 214 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1 by retaliating against Petitioner because he engaged in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired by the Department in 1978 as an Examiner I in Bartow and has continuously worked for the Department since his hiring. He held various positions within the Department through the years, including Supervisor I and Assistant Regional Administrator. In 1998, Petitioner held the position of Hearing Officer in the Bureau of Administrative Review. In February 1998, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent open heart surgery for the placement of two stents to repair the blockage to his arteries. On April 7, 1998, Petitioner submitted to Tommy Edwards, assistant director of the Division of Driver Licenses, a letter requesting a voluntary demotion from Hearing Officer to a word processing position, in order to reduce the stress and pressure of his employment. Petitioner's request was granted. Later in 1998, Petitioner's health improved and he began applying for promotions, but was consistently passed over. He learned that for one Examiner I position, he had been the top candidate, but was not selected because of the letter he had written to Mr. Edwards and because Mr. Edwards had expressed concerns about placing Petitioner in a high stress position. Petitioner wrote a second letter to Mr. Edwards, dated February 9, 1999, to clarify that his physician had given him a clean bill of health, with no restrictions as to the type of job he was able to handle. This situation led to Petitioner's filing a complaint against the Department in 2000, in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, Case No. GC-G-00-0141, based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act. On July 8, 2003, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release resolving this litigation. As a condition of the settlement, Petitioner agreed to release all claims against the Department connected with his complaint. The Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination, filed on October 26, 2004, with the FCHR, alleges that the Department has denied Petitioner promotions and transfers in retaliation for his previous complaint. At the final hearing, testimonial and documentary evidence was elicited as to Petitioner's applications for six positions within the Department. The selection processes for four of the positions, 903481, 2333, 902315, and 2986, occurred after the Settlement Agreement and Release was signed and less than 365 days before the Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination was filed. The Selection processes for two of the positions, 5350 and 5234, occurred after the Settlement Agreement and Release was signed, but more than 365 days before the Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination was filed. Evidence concerning the latter two positions was admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the Department. The Department's selection process for an open position commences with advertising the opening. Applications are received, and a Department employee conducts an initial screening of the applications to determine which candidates meet the minimum qualifications for the position in question. Those applications passing the initial screening are then subjected to a detailed screening in which they are scored according to work experience and the knowledge, skills and abilities pertinent to the position, as well the state-mandated veterans' preference. The Department personnel in charge of filling the position set a cutoff score to ensure an adequate pool of interviewees, then a panel conducts interviews of the selected applicants. These interviews are scored, and the highest scoring candidate is generally offered the position. The Department does allow the second highest scoring candidate to be selected, if his or her score was within 10 points (on a 100-point scale) of the highest ranked applicant. The applicant interviews are not free-form, but are conducted according to a process dictated by the Department. For the positions in question, the Department provides the interview panel with a list of five questions. Each candidate is given the list of questions and has fifteen minutes to read them and prepare a response. The interview panel then meets with the candidate, asks each question and listens to the answers. The interviewers then score the responses according to an answer key provided by the Department, which contains several "correct" answers to each question. A candidate may receive full or partial credit for his responses, depending on how many of the correct answers he provides. The candidates may also be given written exercises that are graded and scored by the interview panel. Each candidate for a given position is provided the same set of questions and written exercises. The entire selection process, from initial screening of all applicants to final interview scores and selection of the successful applicant, is recorded on a spreadsheet document called the Applicant Selection Guide ("ASG"). Department policy provides that an existing ASG may be used to fill a subsequent comparable position, provided the second position is filled within six months of the process that generated the ASG, and the candidate who fills the second position is the highest ranked candidate remaining on the ASG, or is within 10 points of that candidate. The first position Petitioner applied for was position 5350, a compliance examiner position in Pinellas County for the Division of Motor Vehicles. The application deadline was June 4, 2003. Out of 162 applicants, five were selected for interviews, including Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview process,3 the highest scoring candidate was Gary Konopka. Petitioner and Allen Shaffer tied for second. The position was offered to Mr. Konopka, who declined it for personal reasons. The position was then offered to Mr. Shaffer, who accepted it.4 Richard Roth was the regional administrator for the Division of Motor Vehicles at the time position 5350 was filled. He retired in August 2003, shortly Mr. Shaffer was hired. Mr. Roth testified that he made the decision to hire Mr. Shaffer, but had no present recollection of how he decided to break the tie between Petitioner and Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Roth had no knowledge of Petitioner's complaint of discrimination, or of his lawsuit against the Department. Assistant Bureau Chief Edwin Robcke, Bureau Chief Charles Gowan, and Margaret Lamar, the senior consultant in the office of employee relations, who investigates discrimination charges within the Department, all testified that they were unaware of any Department-established procedure for breaking tie scores between applicants. Petitioner next applied for position 5234, an operations analyst5 position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Driver Licenses' Bureau of Administrative Reviews. The application deadline was October 31, 2003. Deborah Todd, the program manager who would be the direct supervisor of the employee hired to fill position 5234, performed the detailed screening of the applications. Out of 113 applicants, five were selected to be interviewed, including Petitioner. Ms. Todd conducted the interviews along with Eileen Bishop, an operations analyst in the bureau of administrative reviews. Stephen Walter was the top scoring candidate, but a recent disciplinary action in his current job rendered him ineligible for the promotion that position 5234 would have offered. Ms. Todd made the decision to offer the position to Deborah Leto, who had the second highest score. Ms. Leto accepted the position. Petitioner finished fifth out of the five candidates interviewed,6 and was notified by letter dated January 2, 2004, that he had not been selected for the position. At the hearing, Ms. Todd testified that Petitioner's interview was "fair," in the sense of "not bad." His answers to the oral questions were too short, but he did receive the maximum points possible for his written work exercise. Ms. Bishop likewise testified that Petitioner did "fair" on his interview. Ms. Todd testified that she had not met Petitioner before the interview and had no knowledge of his prior lawsuit against the Department. Petitioner next applied for position 902315, a compliance examiner position in Orange County for the Division of Motor Vehicles' Bureau of Field Operations. The application deadline was March 4, 2004. The ASG for position 902315 indicates that the interview process was conducted by Department employees Donn Lund and Marie Smith of the Winter Park office. Neither Mr. Lund nor Ms. Smith was called to testify in this proceeding. The ASG indicates that approximately 125 people submitted applications and that 11 applicants were interviewed. Petitioner had the highest screening score of any candidate. However, it appears that once again Petitioner's interview was less than impressive. The successful applicant, Esteban Capo, received a score of 90 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioner received a score of 37 points, placing him in a tie for last place among the candidates interviewed. At the hearing, Petitioner's recollection of his interview for position 902315 was lacking in detail. He simply testified that he recalled nothing untoward occurring during the interview that would account for his low score. Petitioner next applied for position 2333, a compliance officer position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Motor Vehicles' Bureau of Field Operations. The application deadline was June 16, 2004. Out of 190 applicants, five were selected for interviews, including Petitioner. In the detailed screening, Petitioner scored 83 points, which tied him for the high score with Lina Botero. Ms. Botero had the high score for the interview process, scoring 82.08 points, was offered position 2333, and accepted the position. Thomas Thayer had the second highest score, with 74.96 points. In August 2004, the ASG for position 2333 was used by region administrator Gary Konopka to fill the opening for position 5350 created by the promotion of Allen Shaffer to a field supervisor position. Position 5350 was offered to Mr. Thayer, who accepted the position. In the interview process for position 2333, Petitioner scored 60.84 points, finishing fourth out of the five applicants interviewed. The interviewers for position 2333 were Mr. Konopka, field supervisor Clyde Schmitz, and Kelly Cook, who no longer works for the Department and did not testify in this proceeding. Mr. Schmitz testified that he had no recollection of Petitioner's interview for the position. Mr. Konopka recalled that Petitioner's answers to the interview questions were "very curt, very brief, almost as if he were going through the motions." In contrast, Ms. Botero was extremely animated and very talkative. Mr. Konopka pointed out that the scoring criteria award points for multiple responses from a candidate, and, thus, Ms. Botero was better served by speaking more. As Mr. Konopka put it, "the more you talk, the better off you are because you may stumble into the answer." Mr. Konopka recalled that Mr. Thayer was a little nervous, but, like Ms. Botero, he gave several answers during the oral questions. Mr. Konopka characterized Mr. Thayer's written submissions as "superb." Mr. Konopka testified that he knew nothing of Petitioner's complaint against the Department at the time of the interviews for position 2333 and that none of the members of the interview panel discussed Petitioner's complaint. Petitioner next applied for position 2986, a senior highway safety specialist position in Orange County7 for the Division of Motor Vehicles. The application deadline was June 29, 2004. Out of 31 applicants, five were selected to be interviewed. Petitioner was not selected for an interview. Dennis Valente, chief investigator of the Division of Driver Licenses, conducted the screening for position 2986. Mr. Valente testified that, after an initial screening to make sure the candidates met the bare minimum qualifications for the job, he then conducted a detailed screening to ascertain the candidates' education, experience, and special knowledge, skills and abilities. After the detailed screening was completed, Mr. Valente set a cut-off score to ensure that five to seven candidates were interviewed. Mr. Valente did not know Petitioner and was not aware that Petitioner had filed a complaint against the Department.8 For position 2986, the cut-off score was established as 88 out of a possible 100 points and five candidates were interviewed. Petitioner's score on the detailed screening was 72 points. Mr. Valente recalled that Petitioner received maximum scores for four out of five of the "experience" factors on the detailed screening, but that he received no points for education. Petitioner is a high school graduate and points were available only for post-secondary education.9 The successful applicant for position 2986, Clark Brookstone, had a master's degree in mass communication, in addition to his bachelor's and associate of arts degrees. Petitioner next applied for position 903481, an operations and management consultant position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Driver Licenses' Bureau of Administrative Reviews. The application deadline was July 6, 2004. Out of 66 applicants, seven were selected for interviews. Petitioner was not selected for an interview. Danny Watford, chief of the Bureau of Administrative Reviews, performed the screening, then conducted the interviews for position 903481 with Deborah Todd. Mr. Watford testified that he performed no initial screening, and that every candidate received a detailed screening. At the time of the screening, Mr. Watford did not know that Petitioner had filed a complaint of discrimination. Mr. Watford set the cut-off for obtaining an interview at 40 points. Petitioner received 24 points on his detailed screening. Mr. Watford testified that Petitioner was minimally qualified for the job, but that the job opportunity announcement stated a preference for a candidate with a bachelor's degree. The successful candidate, Gordon Brown, had a bachelor of science degree from California State University at Fullerton. As noted above, Petitioner is a high school graduate. At the final hearing, Petitioner listed eight other positions for which he applied and was not offered the job. These positions were not applied for or filled within the time frame pertinent to this proceeding. Petitioner conceded that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent on the part of the Department employees who conducted these employment screenings and interviews. In fact, those Department employees who were familiar with Petitioner spoke highly of his work. Charles Gowan, Bureau Chief of Field Operations, testified that Petitioner has done a good job as an employee in his bureau.10 On August 8, 2003, Mr. Gowan awarded Petitioner with a letter of commendation for Petitioner's work as temporary office manager for the Lakeland driver license office. Patricia Connery, a senior highway safety specialist with the Department, testified that Petitioner had done a good job as her supervisor in 1994. Ms. Connery also testified that she obtained her current position through a telephone interview, without going through a formal application and interview process. Petitioner contends that this incident, coupled with the unexplained method used to break the tie between Petitioner and Mr. Shaffer for position 5350, and the alleged subjectivity of the interview process, demonstrates that the Department's selection process is a sham designed to allow the Department's administrators to hire whom they please without regard to the candidates' merits. In this instance, Petitioner alleges, the sham process was employed to retaliate against him for having brought a discrimination complaint and lawsuit against the Department. The evidence established that there were minor variations among the Department's offices as to the precise methodology employed in the hiring process. However, the evidence also established that the process was internally consistent, i.e., any local variations in the process were uniformly applied to all applicants for a given position. Ms. Connery's internal promotion by means of a telephone interview was an aberration and was unrelated to any position for which Petitioner was a candidate. Petitioner contends that someone in the Department's central office in Tallahassee was the real decision maker for these positions, and in each case insured that Petitioner was not the successful applicant. The evidence did not support this contention. In each instance, the hiring decision was made by the senior employee on the interview committee at the district level. While it is true that those decisions were submitted to Tallahassee for ratification, in no instance was the district-level decision overturned. Petitioner did not establish that any of the interview panel members or candidate screeners was aware of his discrimination complaint or lawsuit at the time their respective decisions were made. Mr. Gowan was aware of Petitioner's lawsuit at the time of the interviews for position 2986, but Petitioner was not interviewed for that position. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, while Petitioner was at least minimally qualified for the positions in question, Petitioner's lack of a college degree and his indifferent interview skills were the chief reasons for his failure to obtain any of the positions for which he was interviewed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Department personnel conducting detailed screening of applicants considered only Petitioner's application and accompanying materials submitted by Petitioner in determining whether, or not Petitioner should be interviewed. Petitioner's applications were treated no differently than the applications of other candidates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 10th day of October, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent's, Jamie Gonzalez, conduct evidenced lack of "good moral character" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was certified by Petitioner on April 26, 1983, and devoted approximately 20 years to his career in law enforcement. He is 58 years old. He holds Law Enforcement Certificate No. 117162. On the evening of December 13, 2002, Respondent left a social function at approximately 11:00 p.m. and was operating his motor vehicle, a pick-up truck, while his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcoholic beverages. Respondent acknowledged this at the onset of the final hearing. As he drove in an erratic manner on a rural Seminole County, Florida, roadway, he was observed by seven teenagers traveling together in two motor vehicles. One of these individuals contacted a law enforcement agency using a cellular telephone. The law enforcement agency directed these young people to follow Respondent and to continue reporting his route. Because of Respondent's proximity to the City of Oviedo, Florida, the Oviedo Police Department was alerted that a drunk driver was headed toward their city. Respondent was driving to the location of his business in an industrial park located in Seminole County, Florida, in close proximity to, but not within, the Oviedo city limits. When Respondent arrived at his business, he departed his motor vehicle and entered his business premises. The drivers of the two vehicles which were following Respondent placed their vehicles in position to block Respondent's exit from the industrial park which had only one exit road. After spending approximately ten minutes in his office, Respondent re-entered his vehicle and began to leave the industrial park. As Respondent drove his pick-up out the exit road, he was confronted by two vehicles blocking the exit road and seven individuals standing in close proximity of the blocking vehicles. There is no evidence that, until his exit was blocked, Respondent was aware that he was being followed. At approximately the same time as this confrontation was taking place, Officer Heather Capetillo, Oviedo Police Department, having been alerted and on watch for a drunken driver, approached the scene on the main road and observed all three vehicles. Because the industrial park was not within the City of Oviedo, she turned her vehicle around and parked within the City of Oviedo city limits several hundred feet from the road leading from the main road to the industrial park. It is not apparent that Respondent or the seven young persons were immediately aware of Officer Capetillo's presence. Although testimony regarding the ability of the various participants to observe what was happening varied, the closest street lights were approximately one mile from the industrial park. At least one vehicle had its headlights on; the remainder of the lighting was natural, moonlight. Lighting conditions were not good. Upon observing the blocking vehicles and the dismounted passengers, Respondent stopped his vehicle approximately 50 feet from them, leaving the vehicle's headlights on. Earlier in the evening Respondent had $4,400 in his possession, which he had deposited in a safe in his office. Believing himself to be the potential victim of a robbery, Respondent exited his vehicle carrying his automatic pistol and his cellular telephone. Because he did not want to confront these seven individuals, he retreated up the road toward his office in the industrial park. Observing Respondent with a handgun, the seven young people were understandably alarmed and began shouting and taking cover. Two young women, observing what they believed to be a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, ran to Officer Capetillo's vehicle, screaming that "the man had a gun" or words to that effect. Acting immediately, Officer Capetillo activated her emergency lights and drove to the scene. When Respondent realized that a law enforcement officer had arrived on the scene, he turned and began walking toward the vehicles, which now included the police cruiser. Upon exiting her vehicle, Officer Capetillo could not initially see Respondent. He was immediately pointed out to her by one of the young people. She observed him near the road behind and to the side of his truck. She was approximately 50 feet from Respondent's vehicle in the immediate proximity of her cruiser and the two blocking vehicles. Officer Capetillo advises that "her adrenaline was flowing." She immediately announced, "Oviedo Police. Where's the gun?" Respondent answered, "Right here." She observed that Respondent had something in both hands. Respondent's right hand then moved up, and Officer Capetillo was able to observe the "barrel of a gun." Respondent was holding the weapon in his right hand at the barrel housing between his thumb and forefinger. She then said, "Put your hands up." Respondent "immediately" (Officer Capetillo's quote) put his hands up. She then said, "Drop it," and "I could hear it clunk." "There was no hesitation"; again, Officer Capetillo's quote. Respondent actually dropped the weapon into the cargo bed of the pick-up. She then said, "Drop the other thing," and she immediately heard a second "clunk." Respondent's hands were now free. Officer Capetillo then instructed Respondent to kneel down, which he did, and he was handcuffed. When Officer Capetillo observed the weapon in Respondent's right hand with the barrel directed at her, she believed herself to be in imminent danger. Fortunately, she used excellent judgment and did not use her firearm.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 9th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jamie Gonzalez 1041 Sugarberry Trail Oviedo, Florida 32765 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact In 1971, Respondent became a state trooper with the Tennessee Highway Patrol. The other troopers introduced him to Mrs. Gary and advised him to use Gary's Garage for towing and wrecker service when he was working in that area, as they did, because Mrs. Gary gave the troopers gifts and allowed them to use her garage for work on their personal automobiles and provided them with free parts. Respondent became friendly with Mrs. Gary, and she began giving him clothing and food, as she did the other troopers, to show her gratitude for their calling her tow truck concern to haul away cars involved in accidents in her area. Mrs. Gary was not obligated to pay Respondent for referring cars to Gary's Garage, nor was Respondent obligated to refer cars to that garage. About the time that Respondent refused to support a political candidate endorsed by Mrs. Gary and also became involved with a new girlfriend, Mrs. Gary told Respondent to stop by her garage to pick up his Christmas present. She told him that if she were not there when he came by, his present would be in the top drawer of her desk. Respondent went to Gary's Garage to pick up his present while he was on duty. Mrs. Gary was not there, and Respondent looked in the top drawer of Mrs. Gary's desk. He found an envelope with his name on it. He took the envelope and left. He later opened the envelope and removed the three $20 bills he found in it. His hands turned green from the ink on the bills. He panicked and threw the money out the car window. Respondent received a call from the Captain telling him to return to the station. When he arrived there, the Captain asked him if he took money from Gary's Garage. When he admitted he did pick up his Christmas present, he was arrested. Based upon Mrs. Gary's allegations, Respondent was indicted on January 26, 1972, and charged with larceny and concealing stolen property in the amount of $577. Based upon the advice of his attorneys, Respondent pleaded guilty to petty larceny, a misdemeanor. On June 2, 1972, he was sentenced to a term of 11 months and 29 days, which sentence was suspended, and Respondent was placed on five years probation. With the permission of his parole officer, Respondent left Tennessee and moved to Florida. Respondent was hired by the Homestead Police Department in June or July, 1973. He attended and completed training at the police academy. On September 28, 1973, he was issued his certification as a Law Enforcement Officer by the State of Florida. Respondent worked as a Law Enforcement Officer with the Homestead Police Department for six and one-half years without receiving even a reprimand. While employed there, he completed his term of probation. In October, 1979, Respondent married a lady who was formerly married to the vice-mayor's nephew. After six weeks, she left Respondent for her exhusband. Her parents involved themselves in the marital problems and pressured the Homestead Police Department to investigate Respondent. The Chief agreed to suspend Respondent with pay while an investigation was conducted, but Respondent resigned on January 3, 1980, rather than be subjected to such politics. Charles T. Renegar has been in law enforcement for 36 years and is the Chief of Police of the Hialeah Gardens Police Department. Respondent was recommended to him by one of Respondent's former superiors at the Homestead Police Department. Respondent was employed as a Law Enforcement Officer by the Hialeah Gardens Police Department on September 22, 1980. He took the sergeant's examination on December 2, received the highest grade on the examination and was promoted to sergeant on December 17, 1980. In June, 1981, Respondent received the third highest grade on the lieutenant's examination. Respondent's certification became automatically inactivated while he was between employment by the Homestead Police Department and the Hialeah Gardens Police Department. His request for activation of his certification after he joined the Hialeah Gardens Police Department has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding. Although Chief Renegar ran the police academy as its nighttime coordinator for 14 years, he never met a more sincere and dedicated police officer than Respondent. During the short time Respondent was working for the Hialeah Gardens Police Department, he received the Optimist Club Award as officer of the quarter. He is highly regarded in the Hialeah community. Renegar has held Respondent's sergeant's position open for him and considers Respondent in line for a lieutenant's position. Renegar flew with Respondent at his own expense to a full evidentiary hearing before the Tennessee Clemency Board. On February 19, 1982, Respondent was pardoned by the Governor of the State of Tennessee of his misdemeanor conviction of petty larceny. Respondent's guilty plea to the misdemeanor of petty larceny is the only obstacle to active recertification of Respondent's Certificate of Compliance #02-8832 by the Petitioner. The undisputed facts of the matter which resulted in Respondent's guilty plea to petty larceny involved accepting gratuities and did not involve theft, embezzlement or larceny.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Ronald Lee Dunn and activating his Certificate Number 02-8832 as a Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 19th day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Percy W. Mallison, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terrence J. McWilliams, Esquire 1999 SW 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 G. Patrick Gallagher, Director Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission 408 North Adams Street Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3053 RONALD LEE DUNN, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the Respondent's suspension of Petitioner was in compliance with Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 22A-7 and 22A-10, Florida Administrative Code. Whether the Respondent's suspension of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact C. R. Dykes is a State Trooper employed by Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, in the Division of Florida Highway Patrol in Pensacola, Florida. By certified mail letter dated September 30, 1977, Trooper Dykes, the Petitioner, was notified that he was being suspended for twenty-four (24) hours (three work days) without pay by the Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Florida Highway Patrol, for: Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee and Negligence of Duty, as a result of your failure to accept witness subpoenas, and your contact with civil deputies of Escambia County, Florida . . . (Y)ou failed to accept witness subpoenas and repeatedly used profanity when discussing these subpoenas with civil deputies of Escambia County. Trooper Dykes appealed this suspension. Petitioner presented testimony and documentary evidence that at least on one occasion the Respondent did not appear for a contested hearing before the County Court of Escambia County after a witness subpoena had been issued for him and the subpoena was served on Respondent by leaving it with Operator Wise at the distribution center at the Patrol Station. The subpoena was not picked up by the Respondent and the Respondent informed the court that he had not received the subpoena. On July 6, 1977, Trooper Dykes was served with a Grand Jury subpoena by Lieutenant G. C. Wiggins and Sergeant W. A. Clark who supervised Trooper Dykes and the other State Troopers in the Pensacola District. Personal service was deemed necessary. Testimony was entered that because of previous difficulty in serving subpoenas upon Trooper Dykes in the customary manner by having the Troopers pick up their subpoenas from the Radio/Teletype Operators of the Pensacola Florida Highway Patrol Station, Deputy D. L. Roland, Escambia County Sheriff's Office, served a witness subpoena upon Trooper Dykes by serving it at Trooper Dykes' home through his wife, Mrs. Dykes, who accepted service with no apparent objections at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, July 22, 1977. Trooper Dykes called Sergeant Vince Seely, now Lieutenant Seely, thereafter at 4:00 pm, on July 22, 1977, to complain about the witness subpoena served at his home address rather than at the Florida Highway Patrol Station. Lt. Seely testified that during the telephone conversation Trooper Dykes yelled into the telephone, cursed Lt. Seely and the Sheriff's Office, made unfounded accusations, and displayed unprofessional behavior, attitude, and lack of cooperation. The Respondent contended that the telephone conversation was strictly between Sergeant Seely and the Respondent; the service of the subpoena was not urgent; that 1:15 p.m. is not a reasonable time of day for a person working from midnight to 8 o'clock in the morning; that the birth of a child was imminent; and that the subpoena could have been left at the station rather than have been served at his home. There was some evidence presented that the Respondent "gave the dispatchers a hard time who informed him they had a subpoena for him."
Recommendation Sustain the agency action of suspension of Petitioner for the period of 24 hours without pay. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 6th day of April, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: C. R. Dykes 644 Timber Ridge Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. him. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since December 7, 1990, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds law enforcement certificate number 86138. At the time of the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), a position he held from 1990 until his dismissal on January 31, 1997. In September of 1994, Respondent's law enforcement career was temporarily interrupted when he was shot in the face and seriously injured while responding to another law enforcement officer's call for assistance. Respondent was off-duty at the time of the incident. After a lengthy hospital stay and recovery period, Respondent returned to duty, rather than seek disability compensation. For the duration of his employment as a trooper with the FHP, Respondent was assigned to Troop L and headquartered in Pahokee, Florida. From November of 1993 until his termination in 1997, Respondent was a member of Sergeant Steven Veltry's squad and under Sergeant Veltry's immediate supervision. Respondent and Sergeant Veltry's relationship was a contentious one. Respondent frequently complained to Sergeant Veltry's superiors that Sergeant Veltry was treating him unfairly. Respondent's complaints, however, were not resolved to his satisfaction. In fact, it seemed to him that his complaints made his situation even worse. As a trooper, Respondent was authorized, pursuant to the written policies and procedures of the FHP, to issue citations, as well as written warnings and faulty equipment notices. He also gave verbal warnings to motorists. (The FHP's written policies and procedures do not specifically address the issuance of verbal warnings.) The issuance of a citation has the potential of adversely impacting the cited motorist. A motorist suffers no adverse consequences, however, as a result of receiving a verbal or written warning or a faulty equipment notice. Unlike traffic citations, written warnings and faulty equipment notices are not required to be signed by the motorists to whom they are issued. Like traffic citations, written warnings and faulty equipment notices are issued in triplicate. One copy (the white copy) is given to the motorist, another (the yellow copy) is retained by the trooper, and the remaining copy (the pink copy) is turned in to the trooper's supervisor along with the trooper's Weekly Report. The Weekly Report prepared and submitted by the trooper is a report of the trooper's enforcement activities for the week. Included in the report is the number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices issued by the trooper. After they are received by the trooper's supervisor, the trooper's Weekly Report and attachments (including the pink copies of the written warnings and faulty equipment notices the trooper issued during the week) are transmitted to the district office, where the report is reviewed for accuracy by, among other things, comparing the number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices reported by the trooper in the report against the number of pink written warnings and faulty equipment notices accompanying the report. Following the completion of such a review, the trooper's Weekly Report (without the pink written warnings and faulty equipment notices, which are kept by the district office for approximately six months and then destroyed) is sent to headquarters in Tallahassee, where it is used for statistical purposes. The FHP makes decisions regarding the utilization of its resources based, at least in part, upon the information contained in the Weekly Reports submitted by its troopers. There is no minimum number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices a trooper must issue each month. Furthermore, the compensation a trooper receives is not based upon the number of such warnings and notices he or she issues. That is not to say, however, that a trooper, particularly one who is constantly at odds with his immediate supervisor concerning his work performance, would have no reason or motive under any circumstances to overstate, in the trooper's Weekly Report, the number of these warnings and notices that were issued during the reporting period and to thereby lead those in the chain of command to believe that he was more productive, in terms of his enforcement activities, than he actually was during the reporting period. With the intent to deceive his supervisors regarding the extent of his enforcement activities and to obtain the benefit of having his supervisors believe that he had engaged in such activities to a greater extent than he actually had, Respondent submitted to Sergeant Veltry four written warnings and faulty equipment notices that he prepared, but which he never gave to the motorists named in these warnings and notices: Robert Cummings, Paul Decker, Sharon Ciriago, and Armando Valverde. All four of these motorists were stopped by Respondent and issued traffic citations, but, contrary to what the paperwork Respondent submitted to Sergeant Veltry reflected, they never received any written warning or faulty equipment notice from Respondent in addition to the citations that they were given. Robert Cummings was stopped by Respondent on April 24, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "violation of right of way") and faulty equipment notice (for "no stop lights") he purportedly gave Cummings during this April 24, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Cummings such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Cummings the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Paul Decker was stopped by Respondent on June 8, 1996, at 6:23 p.m. Decker had been exceeding the posted speed limit. Respondent verbally warned Decker to slow down, but did not issue him a citation for speeding. He did issue Decker a citation for a safety belt violation. In addition to a copy of this citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "exceed[ing] speed") and faulty equipment notice (for "headlights") he purportedly gave Decker during this June 8, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Decker such a written warning; nor did he, at any time during the stop, give Decker a faulty equipment notice or even mention that there was anything wrong with the headlights on the vehicle Decker was driving. Sharon Ciriago was stopped by Respondent on June 16, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "following too closely") and faulty equipment notice (concerning Ciriago's driver's license) he purportedly gave Ciriago during this June 16, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Ciriago such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Ciriago the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Armando Valverde was stopped by Respondent on July 5, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "violation of right of way") and faulty equipment notice (concerning Valverde's driver's license) he purportedly gave Valverde during this July 5, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Valverde such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Valverde the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Following an internal investigation that had been initiated at the request of Lieutenant Roy Rogers, one of Sergeant's Veltry's superiors, the FHP's Bureau of Investigations concluded that Respondent, "between April 1996 and July 1996, falsified Warning notices and Faulty Equipment notices." Respondent was dismissed from his position as a trooper based upon the findings of the internal investigation. Since March of 1997, Respondent has been employed as a patrolman by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. According to person who hired him, Deputy Sheriff Arthur Owens, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's Assistant Director of Law Enforcement, Respondent has been "an exemplary employee."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to prove that Respondent is guilty, as charged, of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, and (2) revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer as punishment therefor. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 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 10th day of July, 1998.
