Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Kenneth Burns (Respondent) is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. On or about November 26, 2000, Highway Patrol Trooper Brannon Snead saw a Camaro, with its emergency flashers on, parked on Highway 90 in the vicinity of State Road 10. Trooper Snead stopped to see if he could help and observed two white males hitting the passenger of a black Ford Mustang that was also parked alongside the road. Trooper Snead intervened and eventually arrested Respondent and charged him with criminal mischief, burglary of an automobile, and battery. Trooper Snead identified his arrest report which was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit A. Trooper Snead observed Respondent strike the driver of the Mustang twice. Trooper Snead observed that Respondent was under the influence of intoxicants and was impaired. After arresting Respondent, Trooper Snead transported him to the Leon County Jail. Trooper Snead observed Respondent's demeanor. Respondent was argumentative, combative, and uncooperative. Trooper Snead had to warn Respondent several times about his behavior. Respondent spit all over the back of Trooper Snead's patrol car. Detective Patricia Iadanza testified that she was delivering two criminals to the jail on November 26, 2000. She observed Trooper Snead with two persons who were in handcuffs in the booking area. One was quiet. The other person, who she later learned was Respondent, was loud and obnoxious. She found it necessary to tell Respondent to sit down and be quiet. Respondent was loud and rowdy and indicated he was a certified officer. Detective Iadanza reported she warned Respondent that his conduct would get him in serious trouble in the Leon County Sheriff's Department and he needed to straighten out. He did not stop his loud and rowdy behavior. Subsequently, she wrote a report regarding Respondent's behavior after he made a complaint about Trooper Snead. According to Petitioner's late-filed exhibit, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of trespass of a vehicle, battery, and criminal mischief. He was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's certification be suspended for 24 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Burns 1727 Dewey McGuire Road Perry, Florida 32348-8087 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Russell W. Doran, was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on November 19, 1982. He holds Certificate Number 02-32144. He was employed as a police officer by the City of Clearwater Police Department from July 12, 1982, through December 6, 1990. On the evening of November 10, 1990, at approximately 8:06 p.m., while on duty patrolling by himself in a squad car in the Clearwater Beach area, the Respondent radioed the police dispatcher to advise that he was at 1198 Mandalay Point, which is in an exclusive residential area at the north end of the beach called Carlouel, and that he had seen a black male slipping from the the front of the house there towards the side and back of the house. The Respondent advised that he was going after the suspect and asked the dispatcher to call for backup. After his initial transmission, the Respondent did not call back, and the radio dispatcher was unable to raise the Respondent on the police radio. Several officers in the area who overheard the dispatcher's transmissions, in addition to those specifically asked to respond, headed for the Respondent's location. The first officers to arrive saw the Respondent's empty squad car parked in front of the driveway to 1198 Mandalay and began looking for the Respondent. While they were looking, they heard an emergency radio transmission coming from the Respondent's squad car. When they got back to the squad car, they saw the Respondent lying on the front seat of the car with his head towards the steering wheel and his legs out the passenger-side door. He was apparently unconscious. Apparently, he had returned to the car, opened the passenger side of the car, leaned into the car, put the keys in the ignition and pushed the emergency radio signal. The first officers at the scene pulled the Respondent out of the car and laid him on his back in the street. His shirt was soaked with a liquid that smelled like, and was, gasoline. He had a small cut and a small amount of blood on the back of his head. The officers called the dispatcher to report what had happened and to ask for emergency medical technicians and for more help to the seal off the area and search for the apparent assailant while the Respondent was being attended. Immediately, a Morton Plant Hospital ambulance was dispatched to the scene, and as many units from the west side of Clearwater as possible were sent at high speed to the Carlouel area. When they arrived, they sealed off the area from the south, where a wall separated Carlouel from the rest of Clearwater Beach. The only other ways to escape from the scene would have been by boat-- either to the west to the Gulf of Mexico, to the east to the Intracoastal Waterway, or to the north towards Caladesi Island--or by walking or swimming across the shallow water to Caladesi Island, from which one would have to leave by boat or swim approximately a half mile across the Intracoastal Waterway to Dunedin. To apprehend the apparent suspect, the Clearwater Police sent two K-9 units to the scene to trail the freshest scents. The also had them search the house at 1198 Mandalay and all the nearby houses in Carlouel. Other officers scoured the area. They searched the immediate area and searched the beaches to the north and west of 1198 Mandalay, both by foot and by all-terrain vehicle. They went door to door throughout Carlouel to ask residents for information. They searched every dock and every boat in Carlouel. In addition, the police helicopter was dispatched to the scene and participated in the search. Meanwhile, a road block was set up at the entrance to Carlouel and all vehicles going north or south were stopped, checked and questioned. Clearwater Police also enlisted the help of the United States Coast Guard to stop and search boats in the Intracoastal Waterway, and the rangers on Caladesi Island were alerted. Crime scene investigators also were dispatched to the scene. As the searches were put in motion, the Respondent opened his eyes and looked at the officer helping him. Although he had worked with all of the officers at the scene and knew them well, he acted as if he did not know any of them, acted scared of them, and tried to get away from them. The officers were required to physically restrain them. The Respondent acted incoherent and confused. He did not communicate with any of the officers and continued to act as if he did not know who any of them were. The officers assumed that he had incurred a concussion and had amnesia. Out of concern for the Respondent's apparent medical condition, the officers were insisting that the Bayflight emergency medical helicopter also be dispatched to the scene to transport the Respondent to Bayfront Hospital to be seen as soon as possible at its neurological unit for head trauma. The emergency medical technicians vetoed this request. They saw no medical reason to helicopter the Respondent to Bayfront. There was little of the bleeding and swelling that would be consistent with a concussion or any blow to the head hard enough to cause a concussion or amnesia. They also observed that the Respondent's combativeness and other behaviors were not consistent with "retrograde amnesia," which frequently is seen with head trauma patients. With "retrograde amnesia," the patient is more likely to simply repeat questions over and over. The ambulance transported the Respondent to the Morton Plant emergency room, where he was admitted to the hospital. Meanwhile, the search for the Respondent's supposed assailant continued until approximately 11:30 p.m., but no one was apprehended, and there were no suspects. There were no footprints leading away from 1198 Mandalay. The dogs picked up no trails other than the Respondent and the first officer to arrive at the scene. There were no witnesses to anything suspicious. At the crime scene, some bushes had been trampled in the front of the house where the dogs indicated the Respondent had been. There also was a broken beverage bottle on the side of the house, where some cloth soaked with gasoline also was found, and where there was a strong odor of gasoline. The bottom and neck of the bottle were intact; the middle of the bottle had been shattered. The officers also found two beverage bottles under a palm tree on the front law of the house at 1198 Mandalay. The beverage contents had been decanted, and the bottles were filled with gasoline and wrapped together in a black T-shirt. While the investigation continued, the Respondent remained in the hospital. At first, he seemed to have total amnesia and not recognize anyone. But while he still acted as if he did not know some people, and acted towards them as if he did not even know who he was, he acted towards a select two as if he knew exactly who they were and who he was. Specifically, while still acting towards others as if he had amnesia, the Respondent had normal conversation with Christine Collin, a fellow police officer who was his former girlfriend, and with Alan Whitacre, another fellow police officer who was Collin's current boyfriend. The Respondent had known Collin for approximately three years. She was a police aide when he first met her. Later, she got her certificate and was sworn as an officer in the Clearwater Police Department. They became friends, and the relationship became romantic and intimate. The two discussed at length the problems in the Respondent's marriage and the Respondent's ambivalence about staying married. The Respondent indicated to Collin that he was still married only for the sake of his young son. In September, 1990, Collin decided to end the affair with the Respondent and to begin dating others. In approximately October, 1990, she made it known to the Respondent that she was seeing Whitacre. The Respondent acted as if he understood Collin's decision, in view of his marriage, and as if he was supportive of Collin. But on November 10, 1990, the Respondent called Collin and asked her to lunch. He said that his wife had gone to a wedding even though he had not been invited and it was his birthday. He indicated that this upset him and, to him, underscored the weakness of his marriage. He then told Collin that he was in love with her. He still was ambivalent about his marriage but professed that he was ready to end it. Collin was surprised and did not react as the Respondent had hoped. Eventually, she told the Respondent that she did not want him to be in love with her and that she did not want to resume their affair. When he heard Collin's response, the Respondent became even more depressed about the entire situation in which he found himself. The Respondent felt trapped in his marriage. His wife's father is a former major in the Clearwater Police Department. During the course of the rest of the day, in bits and pieces, the Respondent hatched an ill-conceived scheme to extricate himself from the situation. He decided to fake an arson attempt and fake being assaulted and hit over the head, hard enough to be knocked out or injured, with a bottle containing gasoline supposedly being used by the arsonist. He hoped that this would be enough to get himself out of the situation at least for a few weeks. It is possible that he also planned to fake amnesia, thinking that somehow this would enable him to get out of his marriage and pursue his love interest with Collin. After dinner, between approximately 7:30 and 8:00 p.m., the officer who was riding with the Respondent that day returned to the local police substation. The Respondent used this opportunity to stop and get three empty beverage bottles out of a trash dumpster. He then went to a service station and filled the bottles with gasoline. He stopped at a store and bought a T-shirt. He used the T-shirt to wrap together two of the bottles of gasoline so that he could carry them in one hand. He then drove north to a secluded area of the beach and 1198 Mandalay, a house the Respondent knew from previous patrols probably was vacant. The Respondent parked his squad car and got the bottles and T-shirt out of the trunk. He placed the two bottles he had wrapped together at the base of a palm tree on the front lawn. He then went up to the side of the house, which appeared to be unoccupied. At this point, he began to have second thoughts about what he was about to do, thinking that it was "ridiculous." He gave some thought to just "eating a bullet" instead. But, following his plan, he telephoned the dispatcher and falsely reported sighting a black male in front of the house. See Finding 2. He then attempted to crack himself in the head. To the Respondent's great dismay, after calling the dispatcher, he found that it was not as easy as he had hoped to knock himself out or injure himself. It also hurt more than he planned. Instead, he decided to hold the bottle over his head in one hand and break it with his police flashlight with the other hand. The glass shattered, spilling gasoline over the Respondent's neck and upper back. The Respondent took a shard of glass and cut himself in the back of the head to make it look like the bottle shattered when it struck him in the head. He then walked back to his squad car. Back at his squad car, the Respondent saw that another police vehicle already had arrived at the scene. He decided to push the emergency call button in the car and fake unconsciousness. If he had not already decided to do so, he also decided to fake amnesia. Once he initiated his scheme, the Respondent found that, rather than getting himself out of a stressful dilemma, he had gotten himself into another one that was just as difficult to get out of. Between November 10 and December 5, 1990, the Respondent made various false statements to various people, including investigating law enforcement officers. At times during this time period, especially at first, the Respondent professed that he had total amnesia. Later, he said he had partial memory. Some of the false statements he made to law enforcement officers investigating the matter were under oath; some were not. Some of the statements he made were inconsistent, as his story changed to meet contradictory evidence that had been obtained and to explain prior inconsistent statements with which he was confronted. Eventually, on December 6, 1990, as part of an agreement under which the Clearwater Police Department would allow the Respondent to resign and not have him prosecuted, the Respondent made a tape-recorded and written statement, under oath, in which he essentially admitted to what he had done. In this case, the Respondent is taking the position essentially that neither his admissions to nor his denials of false statements to law enforcement authorities were true. He claims that, in truth, he never has had, and still does not have, any actual present memory of what happened on or about November 10, 1990. He claims that, initially, he had temporary total amnesia. He claims that the false statements he initially made about what happened on that day were the product of his efforts to piece together, and make sense of, bits and pieces of information that were "leaked" to him. Essentially, he states that he now believes he "created" a memory for the police to help them solve the crime, and to help him make sense out of what everyone was telling him. Essentially, he says the same process was at work when he later admitted to his false statements. He claims that, when investigators disclosed to him their difficulties with the inconsistencies and illogic of some of the Respondent's statements, they essentially convinced him that his earlier statements must have been wrong and that the Respondent "must have done it." The Respondent claims that, in actuality, he has no present recollection of what happened on November 10, 1990. As reflected in these Findings of Fact, the Respondent's assertions are rejected as being the next in a series of fabrications and falsehoods invented by the Respondent in an attempt to extricate himself from the circumstances he created for himself. The Respondent attempted to base his latest fabrication on the expert testimony of a psychiatrist. But, at bottom, the psychiatrist's opinion is based on the assumption that the Respondent's selective amnesia results from an actual traumatic incident on the evening of November 10, 1990, in which the Respondent actually was assaulted by an arsonist whom the Respondent caught in the act. It has been found that no such assault ever occurred. If the Respondent was under stress from trauma resulting from the events of November 10, 1990, it was from the stress of recognizing the foolishness of what he had done, and from the personal and career repercussions that would result if was caught in his lie. The Respondent offered in evidence the videotape of an interview given by the Respondent to his expert witness while the Respondent was under the influence of Brevitol, a drug which is known to some as "truth serum." It is found that the Respondent's evidence did not establish that the results of Brevitol interviews are the kind of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. At best, the expert established that Brevitol and similar drug-assisted interviews are useful in obtaining certain information from persons who actually have some kind of trauma-induced amnesia. For example, it is used with some success by health care professionals trying to diagnose and treat patients who present with amnesia and are unable to give their identity or the identity of their next of kin, friends or neighbors, or any other necessary personal information. The evidence did not establish that these interviews are commonly used to ascertain whether someone claiming amnesia is telling the truth. Nor was it established to the satisfaction of this Hearing Officer that these kinds of interviews separate fact from fantasy. (It also is possible that, if not conducted properly, the interview can result in suspect, sleepy affirmations to leading questions, but this defect probably could be detected from a review of the interview itself.)
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 revoking the certification of the Respondent, Russell W. Doran. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: D. David Sessions, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bruce G. Howie, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Hastings & Dicus 980 Tyrone Boulevard Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in the case arc whether Respondent, on October 22, 1987, unlawfully and intentionally touched or struck Mary Ann Lanning and Denise Lanning and, if so, whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which require that a law enforcement officer have good moral character, and thus failed to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) and (7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent on December 31, 1970. Respondent received Certificate Number GF-1813. At the time of the events in question, Respondent was a trooper employed by the Florida Highway Patrol. On the evening of October 21, 1987, Respondent was at the office where he held a part-time job. At home were Respondent's wife, two young children born of their marriage, and two older daughters born of a prior marriage of Respondent. The two older daughters are Kim, who was then 15 years old, and Chris, who was then 16 years old. Respondent's wife and the two older daughters got into an argument, and the daughters angrily went to a neighbor's home a couple of houses away. The daughters had undergone significant emotional turmoil, largely the result of successive abandonments by their natural mother, who was Respondent's first wife, and then their adoptive mother, who was Respondent's second wife. The neighbor's house was the Lanning residence where Mary Ann Lanning and her daughter Denise lived. Denise was Kim's close friend and had been for several years. Kim and Chris were upset and crying when they arrived at the Lanning's home. Mrs. Lanning and Denise comforted them. In the meantime, Respondent's wife called him at about 6:00 p.m. and informed him of the problem. Respondent was not overly surprised. The two girls had recently been misbehaving, and relations between them and their father had been strained. Respondent and his wife, who were due to go to church that night, agreed, as was customary, that they would drive separately and meet at church. Respondent instructed his wife to lock up the house, which contained valuable personal items, including firearms. When Respondent and his wife returned from church that evening, his daughters were still gone, but a note was attached to the front door. The note informed Respondent that they were okay. The note also began to recite the telephone number at which they could be reached. However, Chris, unknown to Kim, had ripped the number off from the note before posting it on the door. At this point, one of the first of many factual disputes emerges. Although it concerns a matter that is not, in itself, of critical importance, Respondent and Mrs. Lanning advance their varying viewpoints with vehemence. The animosity between Respondent and Mrs. Lanning is incomprehensible as they were barely acquainted prior to the evening in question, and neither of them testified to any prior disagreements. In any event, it has proven impossible to credit the testimony of either of them, when their testimony is in dispute. The excitability of Mrs. Lanning coupled with the impulsiveness and arrogance of Respondent, which probably went a long way toward generating a series of failed communications, also detracted from their credibility as witnesses. Therefore, in the many instances in which their testimony is in dispute, the testimony of Respondent alone has been used to construct the events of the following eighteen hours or so, unless otherwise indicated. As the evening progressed, Chris and Kim, who were accompanied by Denise at least part of the way, went back home to see if they could get into the house to get their clothes. They intentionally went when they knew everyone would be gone at church. However, they found that they could not gain access to the house. The daughters may have visited their house a couple of more times when they knew that no one would be home. The record does not disclose whether they returned to try different means to get into the locked house, to mislead Mrs. Lanning into thinking that they were genuinely trying to contact Respondent and his wife, or to entertain themselves by walking around their neighborhood at night. Mrs. Lanning did not try to telephone Respondent or his wife that evening, although this apparently is due to her justifiable belief that they knew where the children were. An uneventful evening followed during which Chris and Kim slept at the Lanning's home and generally enjoyed themselves. Although she was good friends with Denise, Chris had never spent an evening at her friend's house. Respondent was a strong disciplinarian. The following morning, which was a school day, Chris and Kim again tried to reenter their house when they knew their stepmother would be taking their stepsister to school. Unable to gain access to their house and without school clothes, Chris and Kim decided to remain at the Lanning's home that day, and Denise stayed home with them. Later that morning, Mrs. Lanning telephoned Respondent at work and left a message for him to call her. As soon as he was able, Respondent returned the call. The time was about 10:00 a.m. Although the conversation was memorable, neither Mrs. Lanning nor Respondent remembers the conversation in the same terms. They agree that Mrs. Lanning told Respondent that his daughters were at her house, they were upset, and Respondent's house was locked. The remainder of the conversation is based on the testimony of Respondent. Frequently calling her "babe" and "darling," notwithstanding Mrs. Lanning's objections to this offensive practice, Respondent informed Mrs. Lanning that the house would remain locked as long as no one was at home. When Mrs. Lanning offered her advice that he should allow the girls to eat eggs, Respondent replied, "Hey, babe, that's none of your business." Mrs. Lanning retorted, "I'm not going to send [the children] down to that bitch [Respondent's third wife]." Respondent then informed Mrs. Lanning that he would pick up his daughters when he returned home from work that afternoon. At this point, Respondent called his wife and related the conversation, omitting the offensive reference to her. Respondent's wife said that she had reported the girls as missing persons when they had not returned from school that afternoon. At about 3:30 p.m., Respondent arrived home still in uniform and in a marked patrol car. When he greeted his wife, he learned that Mrs. Lanning had spoken with an older daughter of Respondent. The older daughter, who lived in St. Cloud, had called Respondent's wife and told her that Mrs. Lanning was crazy and they should get the children as soon as possible. Respondent immediately went to Mrs. Lanning's house, still in uniform and still wearing his gun. He knocked on the door. Mrs. Lanning answered the door by opening it slightly. Chris, Kim, Denise, and a friend, Deanna, were in the vicinity of the patio in the back, not clearly visible from the doorway. When the door opened partially, Respondent stepped into the house, uninvited and obviously unwelcome. When Respondent entered the house, Mrs. Lanning exhorted him loudly to leave. Respondent said that he just wanted his kids and would leave once he had them. Mrs. Lanning tried to push him out the door. He warned her not to. She kept trying to push him out the door. In a raised voice and threatening tone, Respondent insisted, "Hey, babe, I want my kids and I want them now." As Respondent testified, "It took 20 years of training and every fiber of my being not to go over there and strangle her." Resisting this impulse, Respondent instead grabbed the wrist of Mrs. Lanning and informed her, "That's it, darling. You're under arrest." When she asked what was the charge, he told her, "Well, we'll start off with kidnapping." Respondent was aware that Mrs. Lanning was not guilty of kidnapping. Respondent then turned Mrs. Lanning's arm behind her back. The children entered the room. Denise came to the aid of her mother. She tried to grab Respondent, who informed her: "Get your hands off me, toots." Denise then called him and his wife sons of a bitch. Although Respondent denies touching Denise, his daughter, Kim, whose testimony was generally favorable to her father, testified that Respondent took Denise by the wrist and pushed her away. Kim's testimony is credited. In a similar regard, Kim testified that she saw her father remove a telephone from Mrs. Lanning's hand in an attempt to prevent her from calling the police. Kim's testimony is credited on this point as well. After additional heated exchanges, Respondent was unable to persuade his daughters to return home. He instead left the Lanning's home a few minutes before a deputy from the Orange County Sheriff's Office arrived on the scene in response to calls from Mrs. Lanning and Denise. Changing into civilian clothes, Respondent prepared himself to speak with the deputy. The deputy initially treated the call as a neighborhood dispute, which he tried to settle. He spoke first with Mrs. Lanning and found her sensible and composed. She reported nothing of being touched by Respondent, only that he had forced his way into her home. The deputy then went to Respondent's house and found him in a similar state. The atmosphere deteriorated when the deputy brought Respondent back with him to Mrs. Lanning's house to apologize. Mrs. Lanning became irate and hostile. Recognizing that he was involved in a domestic disturbance, the deputy wisely called for supervisory assistance. After a corporal arrived on the scene, the deputy issued Respondent a trespass warning, which ordered him to stay off Mrs. Lanning's property. Notwithstanding the best efforts of both law enforcement officers, they could not mollify Mrs. Lanning. Mrs. Lanning later complained to the Orange County Sheriff's Office about the deputy and corporal. The record discloses no basis whatsoever for such complaint. To the contrary, the timely decision of the deputy to involve a supervisor in the investigation negates any suggestion that he intended to treat Respondent deferentially because of his status as a law enforcement officer. As a result of the above-described event, Respondent was terminated from the Florida Highway Patrol. Mrs. Lanning claims that she sustained a dislocated shoulder and serious injuries to her arm, back, and neck. She now suffers from bursitis and arthritis as a result of the incident. This testimony is not credited. Mrs. Lanning proved capable of complaining when she felt the need, yet she said nothing of a dislocated shoulder, pain, or even the physical touching when she first spoke with the deputy. The case involves more than Respondent's demonstrated inability to regain custody of his daughters in a prudent and appropriate manner. The case involves more than a lack of "people skills," such as in repeatedly calling a woman "babe" or "darling," especially after she has asked not to be called that, in a transparent effort to intimidate and patronize. The case involves a uniformed, armed law enforcement officer, trembling with rage for perceived but insignificant threats to his authority, allowing fury to overwhelm his reason and ignoring the critical distinctions among his roles as trooper, parent, and neighbor. Under these facts, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character. On August 16, 1988, the Office of the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit filed a two count information alleging that Respondent committed the offense of battery upon Mrs. Lanning and her daughter. On November 10, 1988, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges in Orange County Court. In his twenty-one years with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent maintained a good record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and suspending his certificate for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 10-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 22-43: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings I, a-c: rejected as not findings of fact. II: adopted in substance except "near-perfect" record rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. II, a-b: adopted or adopted in substance. II, c: first sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder adopted in substance. II, d: adopted. II, e: rejected as subordinate. II, f-k: adopted or adopted in substance, although the proposed facts do not adequately describe the incident at Mrs. Lanning's house. II, l: adopted in substance except that complaint filed against Mrs. Lanning is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Attorney Douglas E. Whitney Maitland Springs Office Park 377 Maitland Avenue, Suite 101 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Jeffrey Long Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent, Lonnie Evans, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2008), by misusing his position by using the Chief of Police's city-owned vehicle for campaigning, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Lonnie Evans served as mayor of the City of Coleman for twelve years. Prior to his service as mayor, he was on the City Council for 24 years. Frank Moore was an officer with the City of Coleman Police Department prior to Lonnie Evans' first election as Mayor, and became the Coleman Chief of Police at some point after Evans' first election as mayor. Chief Moore retired in 2010, but remains employed by the City of Coleman as a reserve officer. Respondents Moore and Evans were, at all times relevant to this proceeding, subject to the requirements of chapter 112, part III, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Lonnie Evans ran for re-election as mayor in 2008, and was defeated by Eve Carruthers. The election was held on December 8, 2008. Coleman is a small town in Sumter County, Florida, with approximately 600 residents and 200 registered voters. Because of the size of the community and the nature of their jobs, Frank Moore and Lonnie Evans know each other fairly well, and are, in turn, well-known in the community. At the time relevant to this case, the police department in the City of Coleman consisted of three officers: the police chief, one additional full-time patrol officer, and one reserve officer. During at least part of the time relevant to these proceedings, the full-time patrol officer was James Dingle. On December 9, 2009, an Order Finding Probable Cause, which forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 10-1284, was filed by the Commission on Ethics. The Order Finding Probable Cause was based upon a complaint filed by James Dingle against Police Chief Moore regarding the 2008 election campaign several months after his employment was terminated by the Coleman City Council. The probable cause finding was reported in a local newspaper in January of 2010. Cynthia Martin, a City of Coleman Council member, showed the newspaper article to Timothy Bronson. Ms. Martin had run against Lonnie Evans in a previous election for mayor, and lost. As a result of Ms. Martin's encouragement, Timothy Bronson filed a complaint with the Commission against Lonnie Evans on March 3, 2010, fifteen months after the last election in which Mr. Evans was a candidate (COE Complaint No. 10-043). The complaint stated that the mayor and the chief of police had, for each election, come to the Bronson house and asked he and his mother to vote for Mayor Evans. The complaint indicated that Chief Moore had stated that if Evans was elected, then he would get to keep his job. The mayor of Coleman does not have the authority to hire or fire the police chief. Only the city council can take that action. Frank Moore continued to serve as police chief for the City of Coleman for well over a year after the election, until sometime in 2010, when he retired. Timothy Bronson and his mother, Gloria Bronson, claimed that Chief Moore would drive by their home and pull into their driveway. They would come out to the fence and speak to him. From their position on the other side of the fence from the car, they claimed that, on one occasion, they could see campaign signs for Lonnie Evans in the back floorboard of the patrol car. Timothy Bronson also testified that on one occasion, Lonnie Evans was in the patrol car with Chief Moore, and asked his mother to vote for him. Mrs. Bronson did not testify to any such request by Lonnie Evans, and testified that when Frank Moore came to the house, Lonnie Evans was not with him. In his taped interview, Timothy Bronson recalled that Chief Moore was driving a white unmarked car, but at hearing insisted that the car Chief Moore drove on these occasions was gray. Mrs. Bronson testified that the car was either white or "brownish." Chief Moore acknowledged that he sometimes drove by the Bronson home, usually in response to a complaint by Mrs. Bronson, such as people speeding on her street. He agreed that he sometimes stopped and spoke to her and her son, but denied talking about the mayoral race. He also flatly denied ever having Lonnie Evans in his patrol car at the Bronson home. The patrol cars have dark tinted windows in the back, and the view is obstructed by both the tint and the barrier separating the front and back seats. It is unlikely that either of the Bronsons would be able to see signs in the floorboard of the backseat from a location on the other side of the fence from the car. Mrs. Bronson admitted at hearing that she suffers from short-term memory loss as a result of a medical event. On April 14, 2010, Lucy Burnette also filed a complaint against Lonnie Evans with the Commission on Ethics. In her complaint (Ethics Complaint 10-074), she claimed that Mayor Evans came with Chief Moore, in the police car while Chief Moore was in uniform, to the local fruit stand and asked her to vote for him. Ms. Burnette did not file a complaint against Chief Moore. The complaint was written out by Cynthia Martin, while Ms. Burnette volunteered at the fruit stand. She acknowledged at hearing that some of the statements contained in the written statement were not true, and she wished that she had read the statement more closely before she signed it. For example, the statement in her complaint that "the former mayor asked me to vote for him while he was with the chief of police, in uniform" was not true. According to Ms. Burnette, Mr. Evans did not get out of the car and did not speak to her. Ms. Burnette testified that Chief Moore and Mayor Evans came to the fruit stand in a gray city police car. Mayor Evans was in the passenger seat. Chief Moore got out of the car, according to Ms. Burnette, and told her she needed to talk to Mayor Evans about what she wanted and she could possibly get it. The only indication as to when this incident supposedly occurred was that it happened just before the 2008 election. Ms. Burnette had an ongoing issue with the City of Coleman over her attempts to run a deli or barbeque on her property. At one point, while she claimed she was not a resident of Coleman, Chief Moore had been directed to "shut her down." She claimed that she wanted, but did not need, a license to operate, and that Chief Moore told her to talk to the mayor and he could help her get the license she sought. Although the record is unclear, it appears that her licensure problem exists because her property is not zoned for commercial use, and that in order for her to get a license, she would have to seek a variance from the city council. In any event, Mayor Evans does not issue licenses or direct them to be issued. While he may have had some influence on the decision- making process, the comment made by Chief Moore, if in fact he made it, made no reference to the election or voting for Mayor Evans. Ms. Burnette simply made the assumption that Chief Moore was implying that a vote for Mayor Evans would help Ms. Burnette's efforts to receive a license. She even referred to Chief Moore's statement as some sort of bribe by Mayor Evans, delivered through Chief Moore. Chief Moore often stopped by the fruit stand on his way home from work to buy some fruit. Lucy Burnette often complained to him about her problems related to getting a license when he stopped by. He testified that he told her, on more than one occasion, that she should talk to Mayor Evans or members of the city council about her problem, but did not talk to her about the election or ask her for votes. His testimony is credited. Lucy Burnette's written complaint indicates that there were witnesses to Chief Moore and Mayor Evans coming to the fruit stand in the police car. Investigator Maolli from the Commission on Ethics was unable to locate any witnesses to corroborate her account. On April 14, 2010, Ronnie Owens filed complaints with the Commission on Ethics against both Chief Moore and Mayor Evans (COE Complaint Nos. 10-075 and 10-076). According to Mr. Owens, Cynthia Martin approached Mr. Owens and told him about "the election thing," and asked him if he saw Chief Moore and Lonnie Evans in the car together. She asked him to file complaints with the Commission on Ethics, and actually wrote out the complaints for him to sign. Prior to Ms. Martin approaching him, Mr. Owens was not aware that there was any problem with the mayor and the police chief campaigning while on duty. He admitted that he filed the complaints after he had a "run-in" with Chief Moore over an incident that took place at a local store. The City of Coleman is bisected by a railroad track. Residents living in the neighborhood on the west side of the track are predominately African-American. This area of the town is sometimes referred to as "the quarters." It is not unusual for some residents of the quarters to sit at a table in a lot on the corner, or on someone's front porch, and play cards or dominos. Mr. Owens claims that prior to the election, he and some other men were sitting at Mr. Robert T's house playing dominos. Mayor Evans and Chief Moore drove up in the gray Crown Vic and walked over to the men, and Chief Moore asked them to support Lonnie Evans in his election. One of the men asked Evans for a campaign sign, and Evans indicated he did not have any with him, but would bring one back. Mr. Owens testified that Lonnie Evans later returned, in his truck, and gave a campaign sign to one of the men. Mr. Owens stated that there were five men present when Mayor Evans and Chief Moore came by the quarters. None of the other men testified at hearing, and Investigator Maolli was unable to find any who could corroborate that Evans and Moore came to the quarters in the police car while Moore was in uniform. Each incident reported by the Bronsons, Ms. Burnette, and Mr. Owens involved the use of a city-owned police car while campaigning. The City of Coleman owns three police cars: a marked patrol car, a white Crown Victoria, and a gray Crown Victoria. The passenger compartment of the police cars contains a computer, printer, video system, radar unit, and other equipment. By necessity, this equipment takes up space not normally filled in a regular vehicle. The City Council had approved Chief Moore's use of a car as a "take home" vehicle, and he used the white Crown Victoria almost exclusively. He drove the white police car back and forth to work from his home in Cedar Hill. He testified credibly that he was allowed to make stops in the city car, for example to pick up a grocery item, on his way to and from work. It was not permissible to use the car for personal entertainment or trips. Chief Moore also drove his personal car, a Buick Lucerne. Lonnie Evans stopped driving, at the urging of his wife and son, by either September or early October of 2008, because of his declining eyesight. As a consequence, he did not drive during the 2008 campaign. He was driven to campaign by his wife, Carolyn, in their red Jeep SUV, by a member of the City Council and former postmistress Vergie Everett (who passed away in February of 2010) in her Cadillac, or on one occasion, by Chief Moore in his privately-owned Buick. Both men testified credibly that when Chief Moore drove Mr. Evans, it was on a weekend and Chief Moore was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. It is doubtful that Lonnie Evans would have returned to the quarters driving his own truck, as Mr. Owens testified. It is more likely that when he campaigned, he was being driven by his wife in their SUV, and that he took the campaign sign out of the back of the SUV. Both men also testified that there was one occasion when Lonnie Evans rode in the front seat of the white police car while it was driven by Chief Moore. A benefit was held to help Cleveland Williams, a former member of the city council, who had become disabled. After the benefit, the proceeds were counted at City Hall and placed in an envelope for delivery. Mayor Evans accompanied Chief Moore to deliver the funds raised at the benefit. The two men rode past the location in the quarters where the men played dominos on their way to Mr. Williams' home, but did not stop. Because of the amount of equipment and the "accumulated mess" in the police car, Mayor Evans found it exceedingly uncomfortable and was emphatic that he would not repeat the experience. With the exception of one of the men in the quarters requesting a sign, there is no claim that at any time signs or flyers or campaign literature of any kind were distributed to any of the complainants. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Mayor Evans or Chief Moore ever used a city vehicle to campaign during the December 2008 election.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that no violation of section 112.313(6) has been demonstrated. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2011, 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 16th day of February, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based on all the evidence, the following facts are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Glenn C. Mingledorff, was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-25390 on June 13, 1980. When the events herein occurred, Mingledorff was employed as a uniformed highway patrolman with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). He resigned from the FHP effective October 26, 1984 and is no longer in the law enforcement profession. Shortly after midnight on February 5, 1983, respondent was on duty in Palm Beach County. When the following events occurred he was transporting two DWI arrestees to a local Palm Beach County jail. While driving north on I-95, he observed a vehicle with three occupants swerve into the lane in front of him. After tailing the vehicle a short distance, and noticing that it was "swerving" on occasion, Mingledorff stopped the vehicle. The driver was Nancy Lynn Pearson, a young female whose speech was slurred, and who smelled of alcohol. She was arrested for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. Mingledorff drove her to a nearby "Batmobile" where she was given a breathalyzer test and asked to perform certain coordination tests. While these tests were being performed, Mingledorff transported the two male arrestees to a local jail. Pearson "blew" a .14 on the breathalyzer machine, which was above the .10 legal limits, and did not "adequately" perform the coordination tests. When Mingledorff returned to the Batmobile approximately an hour and a half later, he handcuffed Pearson with her hands in the front, and placed her in the back seat of his FHP car. He then drove Pearson to the Lake Worth women's facility which was approximately twenty minutes away. During the trip to the facility, Pearson began to cry, and Mingledorff attempted to comfort her by explaining what would happen after she reached the facility. He also told her she was "sweet" and "cute," that she had a "nice shape," and suggested that they might go out sometime in the future for dinner. When the two arrived at the Lake Worth facility, it was between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning. Mingledorff parked the car approximately twenty feet from the entrance to the jail. He then let Pearson out of the car, and after she had walked a few feet, told her he had to frisk her. Although the testimony is conflicting at this point, the more credible and persuasive testimony establishes the following version of events. Mingledorff asked her to extend her handcuffed hands to the front, and then reached down to her ankles and began patting her up the front side of her legs. When he got to her crotch, he "felt around" for a few seconds. Mingledorff then went up to her breasts and squeezed them momentarily. After going to her back side, he squeezed her buttocks during the pat-down process. Pearson did not say anything while Mingledorff frisked her, nor did she say anything when she was taken into the jail. However, about a month later she saw a highway patrolman named Davis at a local speedway, who she mistook for Mingledorff, and complained to him about the frisk. Davis then told local FHP officials. Mingledorff stated that he routinely frisked all arrestees for weapons and drugs, regardless of whether they were male or female. However, through credible testimony it was shown that a "hands-on" search of a female detainee by Mingledorff was inappropriate under the circumstances and contrary to FHP policy. More specifically, it was established that a female detainee is not searched by a male trooper unless the trooper "feels there's a threat to his well-being." Here there was none. Mingledorff should have taken only her purse and any other belongings and left the responsibility of frisking the prisoner to the female attendant at the jail. On the afternoon of May 23, 1984, respondent was on duty as a highway patrolman on I-95 in Palm Beach County. He came up on a vehicle which had spun around in a near-accident and was facing on-coming traffic. The vehicle was operated by Siham Caceres, a then unmarried young female. Caceres was extremely nervous and upset from her near-accident, and was unable to drive her vehicle to the side of the road. Mingledorff directed her to sit in the right front seat of his patrol car until she was calm enough to proceed on her trip. The two sat in his car for approximately ten minutes or so. During that time, Mingledorff, who was in the driver's seat, acknowledged that he briefly reached over and touched Caceres' arm to generate her "circulation." Although he denied any other contact, it is found that Caceres' testimony is more credible and that Mingledorff then reached inside Caceres' sun dress and rubbed her breasts. He also rubbed her crotch area momentarily. Caceres did not encourage or consent to this activity. She did not receive a ticket and was allowed to leave a few minutes later. Caceres did not immediately tell anyone about the incident since she was embarrassed, and she was fearful her brothers would "get" Mingledorff if they learned what had hap- pened. She later told her fiancee, who then reported the matter to FHP officials.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence and the testimony of the witness at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer on June 8, 2004, and issued Certificate No. 241081. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Officer Cooper was a traffic homicide patrol officer with the Cocoa Beach Police Department, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of June 24, 2005, while on duty, Officer Cooper observed a vehicle that was speeding and driving without headlights. Officer Cooper then had the driver of the vehicle to pull over to the side of the road. Once the vehicle pulled over and stopped, Officer Cooper approached and made contact with the driver of the vehicle and Respondent. Respondent was in the right front passenger seat of the vehicle. Officer Cooper smelled a strong, very distinct odor of burnt cannabis (marijuana) coming from inside the vehicle when he made contact with the driver. The driver of the vehicle admitted to smoking marijuana inside the vehicle. Officer Cooper approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked Respondent to step out of the vehicle. When Respondent stepped out of the vehicle, Officer Cooper observed a clear plastic bag containing marijuana on the ground next to the passenger side of the vehicle. The outside of the plastic bag was dry, even though it had just rained. Officer Cooper arrested Respondent and charged her with constructive possession of a controlled substance, a violation of Subsection 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent never denied possession of the marijuana. In fact, she told Officer Cooper that she "made a big mistake, a very big mistake." Subsequent to Respondent's arrest, Officer Cooper asked Respondent if that was the last bit of "weed" that she had, and Respondent replied, "Yes sir, it was." Officer Cooper videotaped the traffic stop.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order revoking the law enforcement certificate of Respondent, Michelle A. Liquori. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 15th day of July, 2008.
