Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1987, Respondent, David E. Hancock, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-02. On March 4, 1988, Respondent, Floyd W. Winkle, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-03. In March, 1989, Respondents were employed as correctional officers by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA operates the county corrections facilities for Bay Counnty, Florida. Additionally, CCA is responsible for booking new arrestees into the jail facility. On March 11, 1989, Respondent Hancock was the supervisor of the night shift at the main jail facility in Bay County. Respondent Winkle was the booking officer. The evening of the 11th was a very heavy evening for arrests. The facility was understaffed for the numbers of arrests being processed. In fact, the holding cells, located in the basement of the jail, were full and female prisoners were being held in the interview rooms across the hall from the holding cells. Marcus Kitchens was brought to the jail in a highly intoxicated state. He was bleeding and exhibited lacerations and abrasions to his face and limbs. Mr. Kitchens was also in a very noisy and rowdy state. During the course of the evening, one of the female prisoners requested to use the restroom facilities. These facilities are located in the holding cells which were occupied by the male prisoners. The male prisoners were transfered to an interview room so that the female prisoner could use the restroom facility in the holding cell. The transfer was made by Officer Winkle. One of the inmates was Marcus Kitchens. He had not yet been officially booked into the jail. While transferring the male prisoners back to the holding cell Mr. Kitchens asked Officer Winkle for a blanket. For a number of valid security reasons jail policy does not permit a prisoner to have a blanket until the prisoner is officially booked into the facility and on his her her way to a more permanent cell. When Mr. Kitchens was told that he could not have a blanket he became violent and charged Officer Winkle, hitting the officer on the left side of face with his fist and knocking the officer's glasses off. Officer Winkle pushed Mr. Kitchens into the holding cell. Mr. Kitchens grabbed Officer Winkle by the shirt and pulled him into the holding cell with him. The two landed up against one of the walls of the holding cell and Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle several more times in the chest and abdomen with his fist. While Officer Winkle was trying to block the blows, Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle again on the left side of the face. Officer Winkle then grabbed Mr. Kitchens and put him on the floor. Officer Hancock heard the noise from the altercation and responded from another part of the basement area to the site of the altercation. By the time Officer Hancock arrived, Officer Winkle had Mr. Kitchens on the floor. Officer Winkle was sitting on top of Mr. Kitchens trying to subdue him. Officer Hancock stepped in between Officer Winkle and the inmate, put his knee into Mr. Kitchens chest, grasped the shoulder area and shoved Mr. Kitchens against the back wall of the holding cell. Officer Hancock inquired if Officer Winkle was alright. After Officer Winkle responded that he was, Officer Hancock told him to leave the cell. Officer Winkle left the cell and Officer Hancock released Mr. Kitchens from the wall. Mr. Kitchens began to charge Officer Hancock. Officer Hancock ordered him not to move and Mr. Kitchens sat back down on the floor. Officer Hancock left the cell and the door was locked. The entire altercation to the close of the cell door lasted a maximum of two and one-half minutes. It was while Respondents were in the holding cell with Mr. Kitchens that the alleged excessive use of force occurred by Officer Winkle banging Mr. Kitchens' head against the floor and hitting him three times on the side of the head with his fist after Mr. Kitchens had submitted to the officers. The use of excessive force was testified to by an officer who arrived from another part of the basement area after the altercation began and who could only have seen the last few seconds of the incident. The only testimony this officer gave regarding Officer Hancock was that while he was leaning against the cell wall he told Officer Winkle that Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after which Officer Winkle allegedly banged Mr. Kitchens' head on the floor and punched him on the side of the head. Contrary to this officer's testimony and corroborative of Respondents' testimony was the testimony of the nurse on duty at the jail facility. She did not see any excessive use of force and did not hear Officer Hancock make the statement referenced above while the officers were in the holding cell. She also testified that Mr. Kitchen's appeared to be struggling somewhat while he was on the floor. Officer Hancock testified that he told Officer Winkle Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after the officers had locked the door to the holding cell. Officer Hancock made the statement in response to Officer Winkle's complaint that he needed help in booking. The statement was meant to communicate to Officer Winkle that help would not be forthcoming and that he had to handle Mr. Kitchens during the booking process. Clearly, given the facts of this case, such a vague statement, regardless of where it was made, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Officer Hancock aided, abetted, counseled or procured any battery being effected against Mr. Kitchens. Moreover, this case boils down to a swearing match between the various parties and witnesses involved. On these facts and given the demeanor of the witnesses, such a swearing match does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have failed to maintain the good moral character required of correctional officers. Additionally, given the fact that the Respondents were subdueing a violent inmate and the very short time span in which the alleged use of force occurred it is improbable that any excessive force was used which would reflect on the character of either Respondent. Therefore the Administrative Complaints against each Respondent should be dismissed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the amended Administrative Complaints filed against David E. Hancock and Floyd W. Winkle be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of January, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John C. Minder, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) on November 17, 2014; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of professional mappers and surveyors pursuant to chapter 472, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed professional surveyor and mapper in Florida, having been issued Florida license number LS 4071. In December 2012, a three-count AC was issued to Respondent alleging violations of “former” sections 472.0351(1)(g), and (h), Florida Statutes (2012), through violating Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.052(2)(a)8.d., and 5J-17.052(2)(c)1.a.5/ Respondent “freely and voluntarily” entered into a Settlement Stipulation with Petitioner that resolved the AC. That Settlement Stipulation contained the following provision at paragraph 11(e): Respondent shall provide the Board with a list of all signed and sealed surveys containing a minimum of six (6) surveys which were performed by Respondent within 120 days of the Final Order. The Board’s Probation Chair will randomly select (6) of Respondent’s signed and sealed surveys for review from the survey list submitted by Respondent. Within seven (7) calendar days6/ of being notified by the Board of the surveys which were selected for review, Respondent shall have post-marked and submitted to the Board Office signed and sealed surveys for the surveyed properties selected for review, along with copies of the relevant field notes, the relevant full size record plats, all measurement and computational records, and all other documents necessary for a full and complete review of the surveys, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.016, 5J-17.083, and 5J-17.085. Respondent must attend the Probation Committee meeting at which the surveys are to be reviewed. Failure to comply with this provision may result in Respondent being referred to the Department for non-compliance with the final order of the Board, and the Board may lift the stay of suspension. Respondent provided a list of his signed and sealed surveys for review. In accordance with the Board’s procedures, the Board chair randomly selected six surveys for the Committee to review. Mr. Roberts provided two surveys to each Committee member for their individual review. Respondent admits he appeared before the November 6, 2013, Committee meeting. The excerpt transcript of the November 6 Committee meeting recorded a discussion between the Committee members and Respondent. It further recorded that the Committee voted to “deny the [Respondent’s] six surveys.” The excerpt transcript of the November 7, 2013, Board meeting, aside from the cover page indicating that it involved Respondent (“IN RE: JOHN C. MINDER”), fails to specifically identify Respondent or the action that the Committee wished to be directed towards him.7/ Further, the transcript fails to reflect the actual vote taken by the Board, as the recording and transcript stopped before the vote was recorded. Respondent provided a second list of all his signed and sealed surveys for review. The Board chair randomly selected six new surveys for the Committee to review. Mr. Roberts provided two surveys to each Committee member for their individual review. Respondent admits he appeared before the February 19, 2014, Committee meeting.8/ The excerpt transcript of the February 19, 2014, Committee meeting recorded another discussion between the Committee members and Respondent. It further recorded that the Committee voted not to accept Respondent’s “second round” of surveys, and to lift the stay on Respondent’s license suspension until he “takes and passes the Florida Jurisdiction.” The excerpt transcript of the February 20 Board meeting reflects that the Committee reported to the Board: John Minder appeared with a second set of surveys. They were denied. He must take and pass the Florida jurisdiction portion of the State exam.9/ The Board’s Order Lifting Stay of Suspension, rendered on March 17, 2014, in pertinent part, provides the following: THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The report and recommendation by the Committee is hereby adopted. Respondent’s license is hereby SUSPENDED. If the Respondent files a written Petition for Reinstatement in conformity with the applicable administrative Rules (including but not limited to Rules 5J-17.083 and 5J-17.085, Fla. Admin. Code,) then the Board may consider the Petition and may reinstate the license. The Committee’s report only stated that Respondent “must take and pass the Florida jurisdiction portion of the State exam.” There is no Committee recommendation of lifting the stay of suspension or a suspension of Respondent’s license. Mr. Roberts was the only person to testify at the hearing. Mr. Roberts is not and never has been a licensed surveyor or mapper. His discussion of the probation process was helpful; however, he did not provide any direct testimony supporting the Complaint. His hearsay testimony cannot support a finding of fact. Although Mr. Roberts testified to what he saw Respondent provide and what the Committee members saw, his testimony cannot support the allegations that the surveys Respondent submitted were not in compliance with Minimum Technical Standards. There was no credible expert testimony provided to support the Petitioner’s allegations. Further, when asked the following: “And at that [General Board] meeting was a decision made to enter an order lifting a stay of suspension upon Mr. Minder’s license?” Mr. Roberts responded: “To the best of my recollection, the Board decided and voted unanimously to lift the stay of suspension on Mr. Minder’s license.” The Board transcript does not substantiate that recollection. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s surveys failed to meet minimum standards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers issue a final order dismissing the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional probation officer on February 1, 1991, and as a criminal justice training instructor on December 7, 1999. Her respective certificate numbers are 20851 and 205697. Respondent was first employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) on August 10, 1990. She was employed as a correctional probation officer. As a result of promotions, Respondent became a DOC Correctional Probation Specialist in February 1995, so that she was responsible for, among other things, various administrative duties, such as handling citizens' complaints of employee misconduct and coordinating training events. In April 2001, Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that DOC forced her to work in a hostile environment. On February 15, 2002, Respondent, alleging the same facts, commenced a legal action against DOC in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-60236-CIV. As part of the federal litigation, DOC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that Respondent's complaint failed to claim damages. In response, on March 28, 2003, Respondent, representing herself, filed a lengthy affidavit, to which she personally attested. In the affidavit, Respondent swore to the following statement: I requested assistance from management [following the departure of the other Correctional Probation Specialist from Respondent's office and DOC's failure to fill the empty position], but they refused to assign another Specialist to the office to assist me. As a result I had to work an average of five hours per week extra in overtime without pay to properly supervise this caseload to prevent from being reprimanded, suspended or terminated by [DOC]. I was not paid for this time. The evidence is clear that Respondent did not work overtime, with or without pay. The Correctional Probation Supervisor who directly supervised Respondent at the time testified at the hearing. Obviously not hostile to Respondent, the supervisor testified definitively that during the relevant period in the affidavit--March 2, 2001 through May 9, 2002--she was intimately familiar with Respondent's work, including her itinerary and travel logs. The supervisor testified that Respondent incurred no overtime whatsoever during this period, and this testimony is credited in its entirety. Respondent's sworn statement in the affidavit is false and was false at the time that Respondent made it. Respondent's sole purpose in making this false statement was to deceive the court and show an element of damages that did not, in fact, exist. DOC terminated Respondent on August 1, 2003. She has not since worked in a job that requires certification from Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificates as a correctional probation officer and criminal justice training instructor for one year retroactive to August 2, 2003; placing these certificates on probation for two years from the date of the final order; and requiring Respondent to attend an ethics course approved by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Faye E. Wright-Simpson
The Issue Should the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) impose discipline on Respondent, in her capacity as a corrections officer for the alleged violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2005)?1
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Commission on November 20, 1997, and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 176344. On November 22, 2005, Investigator Sally Cole was a law enforcement officer with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) headquarted in Monticello, Florida. In her capacity as a law enforcement officer she had authority to serve arrest warrants. While Investigator Cole was in her office on the date at issue, the dispatcher for the Sheriff's Office called to tell Investigator Cole that there was a "lady in the lobby" of the office and jail complex related to the Sheriff's Office, who had an outstanding warrant pending against her. The woman referred to was Respondent, who was in Monticello, Florida to visit her husband, who was incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail. Investigator Cole went to obtain the warrant which had been issued from Gadsden County, Florida. When Investigator Cole confirmed the information concerning the warrant issued by Gadsden County for Respondent's arrest, Warrant Number 05-717CFA, referring to a felony, Investigator Cole went to find Respondent. Investigator Cole located Respondent who was leaving the lobby of the Sheriff's Office complex and walking to the parking lot. Investigator Cole approached Respondent in the parking lot and explained information concerning the warrant. When Investigator Cole approached the Respondent, she told the Respondent that she was Investigator Sally Cole. When Investigator Cole tried to explain the information concerning the Gadsden County warrant to Respondent, the Respondent in reply continued to say that "she had never gotten in any trouble." Investigator Cole told Respondent that the Respondent was under arrest in view of the warrant from Gadsden County. Respondent got into her car. Two other persons were in the Respondent's automobile. They were her children. The children were ages 12 and 15. Investigator Cole told the Respondent to get out of the car. Respondent refused. Respondent started to become belligerent. Eventually Respondent got out of the car. By that time the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had made contact with other law enforcement officers, deputies, working for that agency. This contact was made because of a concern that Respondent was not being cooperative with Investigator Cole. Those persons who were contacted were Investigator Christopher Smith and Corporal Gerald Knecht. After Respondent got out of her car, Investigator Cole took her by the elbow to guide her inside the complex to be booked under the warrant issued by Gadsden County. Respondent started screaming at the deputy "to get her hands off of her." At that point the other deputies were in attendance to assist Investigator Cole. Respondent was not cooperating and tried to pull away from Investigator Smith when he was assisting in the escort. Investigator Smith told Respondent to cooperate and stop resisting. His identity was established by the badge on his belt which would remind Respondent that he was a law enforcement officer. During the incident, with her car keys in her hand and the attempt by the deputies to control her hands, Respondent in jerking away cut Corporal Knecht, either with the keys or her fingernails. This caused a minor laceration to the deputy. By the time the Respondent was brought inside the complex, she was "kind of dropping her weight, not wanting to walk and flailing her arms." This is understood to mean that someone had to support Respondent's weight. In addition Respondent was swinging her arms around, not with the intent to strike anyone, but snatching them away. Respondent was very upset and belligerent; not wanting to cooperate. Once in the lobby to the Sheriff's Office, Respondent began to be more difficult by trying to sit down and impede the escort. As the corridor to the jail was approached, then Corporal Virgil Joyner of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office came to assist in controlling Respondent, in an effort to escort her to the area where she would be booked. Corporal Joyner had heard the commotion from where he was located in the booking area of the jail. Respondent was being very loud. He observed the struggle that the other deputies were having in trying to maintain control and advance Respondent into the jail portion of the Sheriff's Office. He got behind the Respondent and started pushing her in the direction of the jail portion of the Sheriff's Office. Finally, Respondent was placed in secure confinement in the jail part of the Sheriff's Office. Later when Investigator Cole went back to talk to Respondent, she apologized and said she was upset and again stated that she had never been in trouble and that she had not stolen anything. This refers to the nature of the arrest warrant from Gadsden County, which was in relation to allegations of theft. Because of the difficulties that the officers had experienced in trying to serve the warrant and book the Respondent, Investigator Cole charged the Respondent with resisting arrest with violence. That charge forms the basis for the present case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statute, suspending the Respondent's correctional officer certificate for a period of 20 days, to be followed by one year probation with appropriate conditions for successfully concluding the probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 21st day of August, 2007
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anthony G. Benjamin was certified by Petitioner on May 25, 1990, and was issued certificate number 44-90-502-02. At the time of the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent was a certified correctional officer employed by Glades Correctional Institution. On July 1, 1990, Officer Amadeo Bianchi and Officer Keith Golden were working as patrol officers with the South Bay Police Department in Palm Beach County. They received a call regarding a prowler at 188 Harrell Drive. They responded to that call in a marked police car, and both officers were wearing their police uniforms. Officers Bianchi and Golden arrived at approximately 3:52 a.m. and saw Respondent outside the apartment at that address. Both officers knew Respondent. They also knew that he lived in the apartment at that address and that he was employed as a correctional officer at Glades Correctional Institution. The officers proceeded to the door of the apartment and knocked. Keisha Benjamin, Respondent's wife, opened the door. Respondent walked through the open door past the police officers and his wife, heading straight for the bedroom door located to the right of the door where the police officers were standing. As Respondent proceeded toward the bedroom door, his wife was still standing at the apartment door with the police officers, explaining that she did not want Respondent there, that they had been having problems, and that he had moved out approximately a week earlier. Officer Golden watched Respondent reach the bedroom door, discover that the closed door was locked, and then kick the door open. After Respondent entered the bedroom, Officer Golden could hear the sounds of people fighting. Both police officers headed toward the bedroom door. When the two officers reached the bedroom door, they could see Respondent and another man fighting on top of the bed. The two officers entered the bedroom, each grabbing one of the fighting men from behind in order to break up the fight. Officer Bianchi grabbed Respondent. It was later determined that the individual Officer Golden grabbed was a man named Paul King, Respondent's wife's former boyfriend. Officer Golden pulled Paul King away from the fight and out into the living room area of the apartment. Golden instructed him to calm down, to stay there, and to not move. King cooperated with Officer Golden and did as he was instructed. As Officer Golden turned to walk toward the bedroom, he saw Officer Bianchi and Respondent coming out of the bedroom. They were still struggling, and Officer Bianchi was attempting to restrain Respondent from behind. At this point, Respondent and King were no more than 10-15 feet apart. Officer Bianchi turned Respondent, who could then see King on the other side of the living room area. Respondent was still enraged at King. Respondent, with Officer Bianchi trying to restrain him from behind, started toward Officer Golden, which was in the same direction as where Paul King was located. At the same time, Officer Golden started going toward Respondent. As Officer Golden met Respondent and Officer Bianchi half way across the room, Officer Golden bent forward to reach down and sweep Respondent's legs out from under him. As Officer Golden bent forward, Respondent struck him in the right eye with his closed fist, causing a small gash no more than 1/2" long under Golden's eye, which required no stitches. Officer Golden stood up, shook his head, bent forward again, and struck Respondent on the back of his legs causing Respondent to lose his balance. Respondent kept struggling with the two police officers until they handcuffed him. Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent by placing Respondent's hands behind his back. Once Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent, Officer Bianchi told Golden that Golden was bleeding and then punched Respondent in the face several times for injuring Officer Golden. Respondent was then placed under arrest. Court documents admitted in evidence indicate that Respondent was charged with battery on a police officer (Count 1) and resisting arrest with violence (Count 2). On February 21, 1991, he was found guilty of Count 1 although adjudication was withheld, was found not guilty of Count 2, and was placed on probation for 18 months. On July 17, 1991, an Order was entered as a result of a Motion for Clarification of Sentence filed by Respondent. That Order provides that the record regarding Respondent's criminal charges was amended to reflect that Respondent was guilty of battery, that adjudication was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for a period of one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-3336 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-11, 13-24, 28- 31, 33, and 34 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 12, 25, and 26 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 27 and 32 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark K. Koenig, Esquire Suite 300 Pavilion 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be used?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued Correctional Officer Certificate number 144670. On or about January 14, 2009, Respondent was employed by Tomoka Correctional Facility (Tomoka). He had been employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) for approximately 15 years. At some point during the day, Inmate William Cash became disorderly and disruptive in his cell, and a psychological emergency was called. Officer James Hinds and Respondent came to Cash's cell to transport him to a holding cell where he could be seen by a psychologist. In preparing for the transfer, Respondent and Officer Hinds restrained Inmate Cash using handcuffs, leg irons, a waist chain, and a black box which secured Cash's handcuffs. After restraints were applied, Inmate Cash was transported to a holding cell, with Captain Darlene Taman observing the transfer. Consistent with DOC protocols, the transfer of Inmate Cash from his cell to a holding cell was videotaped. Once they arrived at the holding cell, Respondent had Inmate Cash sit down on a bench in the cell. Inmate Cash attempted to twist and pull away from Respondent's grasp. In response, Respondent reasserted his grip and raised one arm, placing his hand against Inmate Cash's neck. The inmate continued pulling away from Respondent until he was lying down on his side. Respondent did not report the incident to his Captain or complete any type of incident report regarding the events occurring in connection with the transport. Captain Taman did not actually see the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash, because she was attempting to monitor several situations simultaneously. Consistent with DOC procedure, the warden at Tomoka reviewed the videotape of the transfer. After reviewing the videotape, the warden filed a complaint with John Joiner, Senior Prison Inspector with the DOC Office of Inspector General to investigate whether there was excessive use of force with respect to the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash. A use of force occurs when a correctional officer touches an inmate who is offering resistance, applying force to overcome the inmate's resistance. Touching alone does not constitute use of force. It is the application of force to overcome resistance that is key to determining whether a use of force has occurred. When a use of force occurs, a correctional officer is required to report the use of force to his or her commanding officer; to complete a Use of Force report; and to complete an incident report on the use of force. Use of Force reports are to completed within 24 hours. Correctional officers are trained regarding use of force and the required reporting of use of force on an annual basis. Respondent did not report the incident to his supervisor and did not complete a use of force report. In his view, no use of force occurred because Inmate Cash was pulling away from him and he was not applying force to overcome Inmate Cash's resistance. According to Respondent, he attempted to get a better grip on Inmate Cash and then allowed him to lie down on his side on the bench where he was sitting. He described the event as follows: MR. DONOVAN: . . . Use of force, because you place your hands on an inmate, it does not necessarily incur a use of force. It is the resistance to that, me overcoming his resistance is what determines if there is or is not a use of force. The inmate initially pulled away from me. I reasserted my grasp and put my arm up to defend myself. Like I indicated in my interview, that is why my arm went up. He sat back down on his own and he pulled away and started leaning down on the bench to lay down. And after he got down on the bench, after the whole thing was over is when I gave him more orders to stop pulling away, because he continued to pull away from me. I knew he was restrained -- completely restrained, i.e., leg irons, black box, the waist chain and the -- the handcuffs, which is why I didn't use the force. I just wanted to be sure that I had control of the situation, that I had control of him, so that I didn't get hurt or he didn't get hurt. I have been kicked by inmates. I have been spit on and head-butted by inmates, who were completely restrained, such as Mr. Cash was restrained that day. And I know through my training, that just because you touch an inmate, it's not use of force; that you have to -- you have to overcome the resistance that he's presenting to you in order for it to be a use of force. I did not do that. I did not force him to sit down. As he tugged away, he sat down on his own. And then after I reasserted my grasp to make sure that I had ahold of him and was in control of the situation, he laid down on his own. I do not know why; if it was just an attempt to continue to try to get away from me. However, he did all of that on his own. I did not push him down. The video of the incident was observed by both Captain Taman, Respondent's supervisor, and by Inspector Joiner. Both believed, as did Officer Hinds, that the exchange between Respondent and Inmate Cash involved a use of force. It is found that there was a use of force, but that the force used was not excessive. Inspector Joiner interviewed Respondent as a part of the investigation of the incident on January 19, 2010. His response during the interview was consistent with his testimony at hearing: that he did not file a report on use of force because he did not believe a use of force occurred and that, in his view, there was nothing to report. Respondent's testimony was candid, credible and sincere. He believed what he said in the interview and at hearing. However, his ultimate conclusion regarding the use of force was in error.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Donovan Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character by pleading guilty to the felony charge of child neglect pursuant to Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Veronica A. Smith, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. She was issued Correctional Officer Certificate No. 135464 on December 11, 1992. Respondent was employed by the Lee County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer during the period September 21, 1992, through June 24, 2002. On or about June 12, 2002, Respondent was charged by Information with two counts of felony child neglect in violation of Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), by the state attorney for the Twentieth Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida. On or about May 27, 2003, Respondent, while represented by counsel and in open court, withdrew her previous plea of "not guilty" to the Information and entered a plea of guilty to one count of felony child neglect before the circuit court for Lee County, Florida, State of Florida v. Veronica Smith, Case No. 02-1878CF. Said plea was accepted and the court entered an Order Withholding Adjudication dated May 27, 2003, which withheld adjudication of guilt but placed Respondent on probation for a period of two years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Following notification of her arrest, the Lee County Sheriff's Office opened an internal affairs investigation relating to the underling charges which resulted in her termination on June 24, 2002, from her position as Bailiff Corporal with the Lee County Sheriff's Department. By pleading guilty to felony child neglect, Respondent has failed to uphold her qualifications to be a correctional officer by failing to maintain her good moral character. Although Respondent's employment record does not show any prior disciplinary violations, she has failed to produce any evidence in explanation or mitigation of the conduct which resulted in her arrest and plea before the circuit court or in her termination of her employment with the Lee County Sheriff's Office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Respondent's certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Veronica A. Smith Post Office Box 6812 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Should Respondent Division of Retirement grant Petitioner's request to be included for retirement purposes in the Special Risk Class (SRC) from July 1, 1981 through October 24, 1985? Should Respondent Division of Retirement grant Petitioner's request to be included in the Special Risk Administrative Support Class (SRASC) for the period October 25, 1985 until January 1, 1998?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Alachua County employed a jail facility Director who had overall supervision of correctional officers and special risk employees and who was ultimately responsible for restraint of inmates. Petitioner was continuously employed by the Alachua County Department of Corrections at the Alachua County Jail from the date of his initial employment as a Correctional Officer I on April 22, 1974, to his lay-off as Assistant Director of the Alachua County Jail on January 1, 1998. Political opponents of Petitioner raised the issues of his eligibility for SRC and SRASC classification and the validity of his correctional officer certification beginning approximately in 1996. Petitioner began work April 22, 1974, as a Correctional Officer I (uniformed line officer) and was recommended by his employer Alachua County and approved by Respondent for SRC membership, effective April 22, 1974. Respondent reviews applications for SRC and SRASC for completeness with no audit beyond the certification by the member and the employer. Respondent may approve, retroactive to the date specified in the application. If at any time it is determined that a member is not eligible for inclusion in a particular retirement category, the member is removed, retroactive to the date of ineligibility. Petitioner was certified as a correctional officer by the Council of Correctional Standards on July 1, 1974. Petitioner was promoted to an Administrative Assistant I position, effective May 18, 1981. The Administrative Assistant I position did not require certification as a correctional officer. On May 18, 1981, Petitioner was a certified correctional officer in a position that did not require certification. Effective July 1, 1981, the Florida Legislature merged the Council of Correctional Standards, which had certified Petitioner on July 1, 1974, with the Law Enforcement Standards Council, to form the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC), an arm of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). In so doing, the Legislature provided Section 943.19(3), Florida Statutes, to "grandfather-in" certain correctional officers' certifications. On July 1, 1981, Petitioner was a certified correctional officer in a position that did not require certification. Sometime later in 1981, the newly-formed CJSTC requested that Alachua County send the CJSTC a list of all certified correctional officers in its employ. Such a list was prepared by Alachua County personnel and forwarded to the CJSTC. The list prepared by the County did not include Petitioner's name, presumably because at that time, as an Administrative Assistant I, he was not serving in a position requiring certification as a correctional officer. Petitioner was promoted to the position of Administrative Operations Supervisor, effective March 22, 1982. This position also did not require correctional officer certification. Although Petitioner was employed as an Administrative Assistant I beginning May 18, 1981, and as an Administrative Operations Supervisor beginning March 22, 1982, he did not make application for inclusion in SRASC until March 17, 1986. On April 23, 1986, Alachua County recommended Petitioner's SRASC classification. Kim Baldry, Director of Personnel for Alachua County since 1983, signed off on a form stating that Petitioner: Was employed for training and/or career development . . . and is subject to reassignment at any time to a position qualifying for special risk membership. Respondent approved Petitioner's SRASC membership retroactive to October 25, 1985. Petitioner's November 13, 1987, application for inclusion in SRC as "Assistant Director/Administrative Support," was neither recommended by Alachua County, nor approved by Respondent. In July 1994, the Administrative Operations Supervisor position was reclassified, without any change in job description or duties, as Assistant Director/Administrative Support, and Petitioner served in that capacity until his lay-off in 1998. The position never required a correctional officer certification. Petitioner was not employed as a uniformed correctional officer from May 18, 1981, to his lay-off in 1998. Petitioner did not hold a position for which the minimum requirements included certification as a correctional officer from May 18, 1981, until his lay-off in 1998. Kim Baldry testified that although Petitioner had many job titles during his 1981 to 1998 employment, his actual duties from 1981 to 1998 were consistently over personnel, budget, and fiscal matters; that he primarily supervised fiscal assistants and accounting clerks; and that he was never a jail "supervisor" as such. She did, however, concede that she had dealt with him over correctional officer discipline from 1983 to 1998. Petitioner and Ms. Baldry concurred that from 1981 to 1998, his duties remained basically the same, and that at various times, he was known as "Acting Assistant Director" and "Assistant Director" and when the Director was out of town, Petitioner served as "Acting Director." Petitioner testified without refutation that from 1981 to 1998, his duties always included personnel oversight of line correctional officers; overseeing payroll leave and timecards for such officers; and screening, interviewing, and processing applications for new correctional officers. One of his job descriptions confirms this. Petitioner also testified that he had daily contact with inmates of the Alachua County Jail in the commissary, medical services area, and food preparation area, and with trustees in support services, and that he regularly appeared before the County Commission concerning budget, jail crowding, and the need for more correctional officers. Petitioner's daily primary duties and responsibilities after May 18, 1981, were neither the direct custody, nor the physical restraint, of prisoners or inmates at Alachua County Jail. His daily primary duties were fiscal, budgeting, accounting, and personnel administration in nature. He was not a line officer on the floor with special risk officers and inmates on a daily basis, although he did consult with some line and special risk correctional officers on personnel matters, including disciplinary matters. Actual discipline went through correctional officer captains and lieutenants. Petitioner stated that when he was an Administrative Assistant I, he was subject to reassignment as a line correctional officer at any time and that when he was Administrative Operations Supervisor, there were two other supervisors who oversaw work release and jail supervision, respectively, on a day-to-day basis. At some point, one position was eliminated and one was assigned to the court system. From 1994 to 1995, when Petitioner was Assistant Director, there was one other Assistant Director. Both Assistant Directors reported directly to the Director of Alachua County Jail, who had total oversight of the jail operation. However, when both the Director and the other Assistant Director were out of town, or later, when Petitioner was the sole Assistant Director, the Director delegated his duties to Petitioner for the interim, and Petitioner was left directly in charge of all functions, including security, supervision of correctional officers, and supervision of inmates. When questions concerning his certification and retirement status arose in 1996, Respondent requested that Alachua County personnel look into the matter because he considered it to be his employer's problem and not his own. Alachua County formally requested review by the Respondent of Petitioner's retirement designation, indicating that it did not believe that Petitioner should continue in SRC or SRASC, because he was serving the employer in an administrative capacity. After considerable correspondence back and forth, FDLE, the agency that houses the CJSTC which has the responsibility and authority to certify correctional officers, advised Alachua County by a May 24, 1996, letter that: . . . A review of the files in the Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training indicates that Mr. Krank was a certified correctional officer with the Corrections Council. That council was merged with the Law Enforcement Standards Council to form the Criminal Justice and Training Commission (CJSTC) in 1981. Officers employed in correctional officer positions were "grandfathered" into the CJSTC at that time. Mr. Krank was not employed as a correctional officer at the time of the merger, and, therefore, was not grandfathered into the CJSTC. It is suggested that if Mr. Krank requests more specific information concerning the grandfather clause in the statute, that he contact the State Department of Corrections. I have enclosed a copy of the 1983 Florida Statutes reference [sic] the "Saving Clause." However, it does not go into any detail as to what the process was at that time. (Joint Composite Exhibit 5) (Emphasis supplied.) Respondent received a May 21, 1998, letter from FDLE, stating: After a thorough search of the Automated Training and Management System (ATMS2), historical databases, and records stored on microfiche, there is no record of Mr. Krank working as an officer in Florida. Citing Rule 11B-27.0026, Florida Administrative Code, first enacted in 1994, FDLE went on to say that it considered Petitioner to be a certified correctional officer separated from employment and not re-employed within four years after the last date of separation, who therefore needed to reactivate his certification. (Joint Exhibit 10). The undersigned's research shows that Rule 11B-27.0023, Florida Administrative Code, new in 1982, provided that a certified correctional officer separated from employment and not re-employed within four years must reactivate his or her certification and that Rule 11B-27.0026, Florida Administrative Code, cited in FDLE's letter, actually explains how to reactivate certification. In reliance on FDLE correspondence, Respondent removed Petitioner from the SRC and SRASC classifications. Subsequent to being laid-off by Alachua County in 1998, Petitioner accepted a job as a correctional officer trainee with the Florida State Prison on February 2, 1999. Petitioner was hired as a correctional officer trainee at Florida State Prison, pending resolution of the instant case. Petitioner's arrangement with Florida State Prison personnel was that he would attend training from February 22, 1999, through May 25, 1999, after which he would have to pass a test administered by FDLE on June 29, 1999, in order to become a certified correctional officer and continue in the correctional officer position for which he had been hired.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order removing Petitioner from SRC and SRASC classification from July 1, 1981 to October 24, 1985, and from October 25, 1985 to January 1, 1998, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 19th day of August, 1999.
