The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a law enforcement officer, is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer, holding certificate number 92165. At all material times, the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office employed Respondent until Respondent resigned shortly after giving the statement described below. In June 1995, a female narcotics informant alleged that she had traded sex for money with Respondent. The DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office commenced an investigation. According to the female informant, who did not testify in this case, there were no witnesses to the alleged incidents. After interviewing the female informant, the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office or the female informant filed a criminal complaint with the State Attorney’s Office. On July 18, 1995, the State Attorney’s Office filed a memorandum declining to prosecute Respondent because the “[o]nly evidence is the word of an admitted prostitute and drug-user. Under these circumstances, [we] cannot prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.” After receiving a copy of this memorandum, the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office scheduled an interview of Respondent concerning the allegations of the female informant. A lieutenant who had not previously conducted an internal affairs investigation assumed responsibility for conducting the interview. The lieutenant contacted Respondent on the afternoon of July 18, told him that he was conducting an internal affairs investigation, and directed him to give an interview the following afternoon. The lieutenant, who had a superior rank over Respondent, did not inform Respondent of the nature of the investigation or of the identity of the complainant. The interview of Respondent took place on July 19, 1995, starting at 1:00 p.m. In addition to Respondent and the lieutenant, a major and captain of the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office were present, as was a sergeant, who was present at the request of Respondent as an additional witness, but not an advisor. The lieutenant had a package of information at the start of the interview, but did not give it to Respondent until after the interview was completed. The package included a Notification of Charges/Allegations, stating that from January 1991 through June 1995 Respondent allegedly engaged the named female informant in prostitution at least ten times at Respondent’s residence. The form advised that, if sustained, these allegations constituted conduct unbecoming a deputy. The package also included an Admonition Form. This form, which is prepared by the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office, states that “prior to questioning an accused member . . ., [any member of the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office shall] present the following admonition to said accused . . . for the member to read.” The Admonition states in its entirety: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as part of an official investigation of the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties and/or your continued fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to testify or to answer questions relating to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to departmental charges which, if sustained, could result in your dismissal from the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office. If you answer questions, as required, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent department charges. The lieutenant commenced the interview by stating that the purpose of the interview was an allegation of some misconduct and then reading the Admonition. After reading the Admonition, the lieutenant asked Respondent if he understood the Admonition, and Respondent replied that he did. Without letting Respondent read the Admonition, the lieutenant then asked Respondent about the allegation that he had engaged in sex for money at least ten times with the named female informant. Respondent admitted to a single incident of sexual intercourse four or five years ago, without any mention of any payment, but denied any other sexual relations. He explained that he had given her some money for information and for personal matters--as Respondent had known her socially for over 20 years and each was a friend of the other’s family. At the conclusion of his questions, the lieutenant asked the major if he had any questions. The major asked if Respondent would take a polygraph test and if Respondent knew that the female informant had taken and passed one. The major asked a few more questions, largely repeating the questions asked by the lieutenant. After the major was finished, the lieutenant asked Respondent to sign the Notification and Admonition forms. He then asked Respondent to raise his right hand and swear that the statement that he had given was the ”truth, so help you God.” After obtaining an affirmative answer from Respondent, the lieutenant proceeded to go over some of the forms when Respondent interrupted him, saying: Wait, wait, wait, wait. I . . . I . . . I . . . I can’t do this here. I won’t be able to live with myself. There was more than one time. I . . . I . . . I just can’t do this now. I’m not going to lie. It was more than one time. I’ll take the polygraph. Um . . . I think it was like . . . four times. I . . . I . . . I just can’t do that. The lieutenant asked Respondent if he had exchanged money for sex, and Respondent answered in the affirmative. He said that on two occasions he gave her about $15 or $20 and the rest of the time the money was for information. Respondent said that the sex acts took place only when he was off-duty and out of uniform. The lieutenant asked, “I guess you realize that that’s considered prostitution, right?” Respondent answered, “Yeh. That’s about it.” The interview continued, although no material information emerged. Respondent apologized for lying the first time during the interview and stated: “Jap [Respondent]. You sitting here lying to these people. You done worked for these people for eight years. You ain’t never lied to them. So why are you going to sit here and lie? . . . I just couldn’t walk out of here knowing that I had told you a lie.” Respondent also mentioned that a mutual acquaintance of his and the female informant had told him of the allegations and that Respondent had told his attorney the truth. Respondent's statements do not detail the two occasions on which Respondent paid money to the female informant, had sex with her, and did not obtain any information. They were friends for over 20 years and knew each other's families; the possible explanations are numerous. During the interview, Respondent expressed considerable remorse for lying initially and having sex with a known prostitute and drug abuser. Without more, given the background between the parties, Respondent's admission of this moral lapse does not constitute an admission of the crime of prostitution or a failure of good moral character. Advice of already-retained counsel might have clarified Respondent’s testimony by differentiating between the shame that Respondent felt and possible commission of a crime or failure to maintain good moral character. Certainly, contemporaneous legal advice might have lent meaning to Respondent’s dubious admission to the legal conclusion that he committed the crime of prostitution; the record provides no reason to believe that Respondent was aware of the legal elements of the crime, which another deputy testified had been prosecuted only once in the many years in DeSoto County. Another source of confusion is the Admonition itself. In general, the Admonition addresses the possibility of criminal and employment sanctions, but not professional discipline against Respondent’s law enforcement certificate. Most misleading is the second-to-last sentence, advising, “If you answer questions, as required, neither your statement nor any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.” This statement tells Respondent that he is required to answer questions, although clearly he is not. Following the statement concerning employment with the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office, this statement mentions criminal proceedings, but nowhere is there any statement of Respondent’s due-process rights regarding a disciplinary proceeding against his certificate. Respondent was confused in the interview due to the inadequate and untimely disclosure of the nature of the charges; the misleading statements contained in the Admonition; the reading of the Admonition by the lieutenant, rather than Respondent's being allowed to read the Admonition itself, as the Admonition allows Respondent to do; the belated administration of the oath; the alternative interrogations by the lieutenant, then the major, and then the lieutenant; the failure to explain all of Respondent’s rights; and the failure to provide Miranda rights. These serious deficiencies undermined the reliability of Respondent’s arguably inculpatory statements to the point that they are inherently unreliable and not even, on their face, inculpatory.
Recommendation 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 December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Robert M. Bader Robert M. Bader Law Office Post Office Box 3551 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact John Stewart is a correctional officer with permanent status. He filed a timely appeal on his five-day suspension with the Career Service Commission. Franklin Ashe, Assistant Food Service Director, was Stewart's immediate supervisor and rater at the time in question. Stewart had transferred to kitchen duties shortly after his initial rating as a Correctional Officer I in March, 1976. Ashe prepared Stewart's first rating as a Correctional Officer I working in the kitchen as a steward on April 25, 1977. At that time Stewart had worked in the southwest unit kitchen since the and of March, 1977. His duties in the southwest unit kitchen were direction and supervision of inmate cooks and cook's helpers. Prior to his transfer, Stewart's duties were to take the noon meal to the prisoners working on work details outside the prison. However, Ashe had also supervised Stewart prior to his transfer to the southwest unit kitchen. His performance of his initial duties were presumably satisfactory because this was apparently a good assignment and Stewart performed these duties until March, 1977. The benefits of this job included no shift work and weekends off. In late March, 1977, Stewart who was active in a union organizational effort received oral warning from D. E. Carter concerning passing out union material on the premises of the prison. Shortly thereafter, Stewart who was an alternate to the bargaining talks, was moved from his duties serving prisoners on work detail and assigned to shift work. Shortly after that he was moved to the southwest unit kitchen. The evaluation involved in this case followed shortly thereafter. Ashe's evaluation of Stewart was delivered to Ashe by one of the Correctional Officers II or sergeants who were assigned duties in the kitchen. Ashe was displeased about the rating and asked the sergeant about speaking to Ashe. A meeting occurred between Ashe and Stewart in Ashe's office shortly after Stewart came to work on May 23, 1977. This meeting lasted about five minutes. Stewart states that he asked Ashe about the rating and Ashe replied that it was self-explanatory and that he just called the facts the way they were. Beyond this Ashe gave no explanation of the basis for his rating of Stewart. Ashe does not deny this, but alleges that Stewart was abusive and insubordinate by stating that he (Ashe) was full of shit. Ashe then attempted to terminate the meeting by leaving. Ashe stated that Stewart blocked his way out of the door and told him that he was a baby not a man and that if they met on the street, Ashe had better move over. Stewart denies having used vulgar or threatening language with Ashe, but admits that be did stand in the door way and did say Ashe was a baby not a man. Stewart never received an explanation of his rating. Based upon the foregoing Stewart was suspended for five days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer finds that good cause existed for disciplinary action against Stewart. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Gearey, Esquire Department of Offender Rehabilitation 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Walter Thomas, Esquire Voyager Building 2255 Phyllis Street Jacksonville, Florida Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue This case is presented for consideration based upon a claim by the Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr. against the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, contending that the Respondent, by its employment practices, has unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner Brannon related to an alleged handicap, in violation of Subsection 23.167(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In view of this purported violation, Petitioner Brannon requests money damages in the way of back salary payments and benefits, together with attorney's fees, in keeping with Subsection 23.167(13), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner Brannon declines the opportunity for any reinstatement in his former employment with the Brevard Sheriff's Office. In defending against these accusations, the Respondent has plead certain affirmative defenses and contends that its action dismissing the Petitioner Brannon was lawful in view of the provision, Subsection 23.167(8)(a), Florida Statutes, specifically related to the portion of that provision dealing with taking action based upon the need for an absence of a particular handicap as related to a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the particular employment to which such action or inaction is related."
Findings Of Fact Case History On April 2, 1979, the Petitioner, F. R. Brannon, Sr., executed a form complaint of discrimination with the Petitioner, Florida Commission on Human elations, which challenged his dismissal by the Brevard County Sheriff's Department, which occurred on January 5, 1979. After reviewing the complaint, the Petitioner Commission, by action of September 11, 1980, as filed on September 16, 1980, made its determination of case, i.e., reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred reference the Brevard County Sheriff's Department's dismissal of the Petitioner Brannon. A separate notice of the determination of cause was forwarded to the complainant Brannon and the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, on September 16, 1980. Efforts were then made to reach conciliation between the contesting parties and these efforts were unsuccessful and notification of this failure of conciliation was forwarded by the Commission on October 21, 1980. On November 21, 1980, counsel for the Petitioner Brannon made known his appearance before the Commission through written Notice of Appearance and filed a Petition for Relief on the subject of the aforementioned claim brought by the Petitioner Brannon. By document dated November 25, 1990, and placed on file November 26, 1980, the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Human Relations were notified of the filing of Brannon's Petition for Relief from alleged unlawful employment practice. Subsequent to that notification, Brannon's Petition was transmitted to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration of the claim. This transmittal was made on November 26, 1980, and received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 1, 1980. On December 1, 1980, counsel for the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, filed its answer to the Petition and statement of affirmative defenses. The Respondent also, by motion of that date, moved to dismiss the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on December 12, 1980. On December 31 1980, the Respondent, in the person of its former counsel, Charles F. Broome, Esquire, wrote to the Hearing Officer to advise that there had been a change in administration in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office and that the newly elected sheriff wished to have a substitution of counsel. There ensued a series of contacts on the part of this Hearing Officer to establish a hearing date which would accommodate the change in administration and substitution of counsel. After consultation with the parties, the month of March, 1981, was tentatively selected as a time for hearing. This determination was made upon consultation with counsel for the parties, to include Catherine Riley, Esquire, the substituted counsel for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The case was subsequently scheduled for hearing on March 9, 1981. Prior to the time for hearing, a letter was written by counsel for the Respondent on January 16, 1981, to advise that one of her witnesses was unable to attend the hearing until after March 30, 1981. By correspondence dated January 22, 1981, in response to the letter of January 16, 1981, which had been addressed to counsel for the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner acquiesced in the continuance of the hearing and asked that the matter be set at the first available date beyond March 29, 1981. The correspondence was treated as a motion to continue the case on behalf of the Brevard County Sheriff's office, and the matter was reset for hearing on April 9, 1981. The Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, had also moved to file an additional affirmative defense, and this motion was granted on February 2, 1981. The initial session of the hearing was held on April 9, 1981, and continued until May 29, 1981, allow the hearing to be concluded. The hearing was concluded on May 29, 1981, and this Recommended Order is being entered after such hearing. In the way of argument, the parties have submitted written memoranda through counsel and have suggested proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended disposition in this matter. To the extent that those proposals, conclusions and recommendations are consistent with the Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the proposals, conclusions and recommendations are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are hereby rejected. Material Facts The Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr., is an individual who was forty- three (43) years of age at the time of the formal hearing. In the course of his adult life he has worked primarily in law enforcement for a period of sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) years, to include service to the Lake City, Florida, police Department; Eau Gallie, Florida, Police Department: Melbourne, Florida, Police Department; two periods of service with the Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff's Office; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff's Office and the Marion County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. On July 4, 1974, while working for the Marion County Sheriff's Office as a line deputy, the Petitioner Brannon was shot in his left side and left hand in an attempt to apprehend a felon. He was given a period of convalescence by his employer and then returned as an investigator for the Marion County Sheriff's Office. In September, 1976, after being returned to duty, the condition in his left hand was exacerbated by another job related injury, leading to the eventual amputation of his left hand on November 9, 1980, after the hand had become gangrenous. This final treatment intervention followed a series of approximately twenty (20) operations over the period of time following the initial gunshot wound. The Petitioner Brannon left his employment with Marion County and in January of 1977, took employment with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office where he was hired as a Lieutenant in charge of the division dealing with communications and vehicle maintenance. At all pertinent times to this inquiry, his employer, the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, was an employer with fifteen (15) or more persons working for that entity, for a period of twenty (20) weeks or more during the year. While Brannon was working for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he was placed in the position of Captain, awaiting pay adjustment to that grade. At the time of his dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on January 5, 1979, he was receiving a salary of approximately $1,260.00 per month, with an additional $175.77 per month contributed for the benefit of his retirement. While serving as the Division Commander of the Communications and Maintenance Unit of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, Brannon had as many as thirty (30) persons under his supervision. Brannon bad been hired by Sheriff Ronald W. Zimmerman and worked for that individual until September, 1978, when Zimmerman was suspended. Following Zimmerman's suspension from September, 1978, until January 5, 1979, the date of his discharge, Brannon worked for Sheriff David U. Strawn. During the course of Brannon's service under the command of Sheriff Strawn, the problem with Brannon's hand caused him mild to severe pain and led to frequent usage of Demerol and Vistaril to accommodate this problem. Although the visits were not made during working hours per se, Brannon made numerous visits to a local hospital during the September, 1978, to January 5, 1979, time frame, for purposes of treatment. The degree of his discomfort and the effect on Brannon was such that by January 30, 1979, his treating physician, Dr. Maurice Hodge, was of the opinion that Brannon was "totally disabled because he is unable [sic] to use his hand for any gainful purpose. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence and attachment identified as Respondent's No. 1. Notwithstanding the physical discomfort, Brannon attempted to perform his role as Deputy Sheriff and supervisor; however, there were numerous absences from duty during the time of the Strawn administration, to include a period December 18, 1978, through December 30, 1978. All of these absences were accounted for as authorized holidays, annual leave or sick leave. James H. Garvin, presently a Captain in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, in the position of Jail Supervisor, was emoloyed with that Sheriff's Office during Sheriff Strawn's tenure. At that time, his office in the Sheriff's complex building was located adjacent to that of Brannon and to the extent that the two officers had contact, Garvin did not have difficulty with work coordination involving Brannon. Other officers who had association with Brannon during the time of Strawn's service as Sheriff, included Johnny L. Manis, who was a Captain in 1978, in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The communication section was included in his area of responsibility and upon Brannon's dismissal, Manis took over the responsibilities which Brannon had fulfilled in the communications section. Upon taking over, Captain, now Lieutenant, Manis, found the morale in that section to be less than acceptable and the turnover rate to be, in his estimation, excessive. Captain Charles Tenvooren who served as a Major in the Strawn administration, had supervisory responsibility for Brannon in that time period and recalls that Brannon was in the hospital at times. Tenvooren knew that Brannon was being treated for the condition related to his arm and hand and observed impairment in Brannon's job function. As supervisor, he spoke with Sheriff Strawn about the medication that Brannon was taking. Tenvooren also spoke with Brannon about the problem of impairment related to the injury to the arm, as described by the witness Tenvooren. Brannon, in talking with Tenvooren, mentioned the pain which he was experiencing. Lieutenant Harmon B. Wisby testified in the course of the hearing. When Strawn was Sheriff, Lieutenant Wisby was the coordinator of the reserve auxiliary group of the Sheriff's Department. During that time sequence, Wisby was aware of the fact that Brannon was under medication, information he gained from conversations he had with Brannon. Brannon indicated ythat he was having pain and that he was to go back to the hospital. Brannon also indicated to Wisby that he had been given medication to assist him in coping with the pain. Wisby recalls several times when Brannon did not seem aware of his surroundings while he was in the office building, in that Brannon would not respond to him when spoken to in the form of a greeting. Alice Alderman who is a Communications Officer with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, who worked in the communications section while Brannon was supervisor during the Strawn administration, testified at the hearing. She admits that she had a personality conflict with Brannon. Nonetheless, she testified that during this time sequence he seemed to be "distant." Another employee within the communications section who testified at the hearing was Debbie Walden who was a Communications Dispatcher in the Brevard Sheriff's Office at the time that Strawn was Sheriff. Brannon was her shift supervisor and she recalls numerous absences by Brannon, who from her recollection worked on the same shift on which she was employed. She also indicated that morale was a problem at the time that Brannon was in charge of the section. On January 5, 1979, through correspondence, Sheriff Strawn dismissed Brannon. A copy of the dismissal may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. In the course of the hearing, Strawn indicated that his decision to dismiss no basis for the correspondence was premised on evidence gained from other personnel in the Sheriff's Office; the medical reports pertaining to the Petitioner's physical condition related to his hand; the prognosis on that condition; the uses of pain medication; a few personal observations of the Petitioner in which Strawn felt the Petitioner to be "spacey"; the belief that the Petitioner was not capable of line duty, i.e., responsibilities as an armed deputy; the problem which Brannon appeared to have approaching his job with a "clear head"; the high turnover in the communications section, indicating a problem with management by Brannon; a property control problem related to equipment which Brannon had in his charge and Brannon's lack of ability as an administrator and supervisor. All of Strawn's background reasons and observations were an accurate depiction of the circumstance with the exception that there was insufficient proof in the course of the hearing to demonstrate that Brannon had acted inappropriately on the subject of property control of equipment in the communications section. Likewise, reported observations by coworkers are correct. In particular, the use of pain medication for the handicap related to the injured arm and hand was such that Brannon was incapable of performing the duty of a line officer charged with the direct protection of the public and the possibility of use of force to effect that purpose. This medication also compounded Brannon's problems as an administrator. When the dismissal letter was drafted, the prime focus of that letter was to the effect that the Sheriff's Office was concerned about Brannon's return to employment duties because of the belief by the Department that there would be exposure for liability in terms of workmen's Compensation claims by Brannon, in that the Sheriff's office believed that they would be entirely liable for physical disability if Brannon suffered an "industrial accident" while acting in the scope and capacity of his position within the Department. In further explanation, it was stated that the Department believed the health circumstance of Brannon was intense in view of the pain and associated use of special medications. For these reasons, Strawn was concerned that any negligent act by Brannon could result in liability for the Department, apparently from claims by third parties. The letter of dismissal went on to say that his duties were not being performed as well as expected because of Brannon's physical condition and the necessity for taking drugs to cope with those problems and further concern for fellow officers and members of the public. This statement can be related to Brannon's potential abilities as a lane officer and his primary function as supervisor of the communications and maintenance section. (Notwithstanding the fact that Brannon was not serving on a day-to-day capacity as a line officer, as a Deputy Sheriff he could reasonably be expected to be pressed into service in the eventuality of some emergency which called upon all appointees within the Sheriff's Office who are deputies to serve in that capacity, and as Brannon himself stated at the hearing, Sheriff's deputies are technically on duty twenty-four (24) hours a day.) Finally, the impression was created in the hearing process that the Strawn administration had been concerned about Brannon's absenteeism and morale in his section. Although this is not expressly stated in the letter of dismissal, the facts presented in evidence bear out the contention that Brannon was absent an inordinate number of times, notwithstanding the fact that the absences were taken under legitimate leave principles, and there were problems related to morale in the communications section. In addressing Strawn's worries, there was no procedure undertaken for formal evaluation of Brannon's performance. Sheriff Strawn did discuss Brannon's physical condition with him and what the Sheriff perceived to be a problem with the communications equipment inventory control system. On January 8, 1979, Brannon began to look for alternative employment and gained such employment with the Brevard County Public Safety Division, within the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on march 26, 1979, and was employed by them until January 14, 1981. During the course of his employment, he received $16,812.40 in gross earnings, and was provided life insurance commensurate with his annual salary, as well as health insurance. In addition, this employer "paid-in" at the rate of 9.1 percent of annual salary, into a retirement system. This payment to the retirement system was not made during leave without pay between July 1, 1980, and August, 1980. Following his employment with the Brevard Counts' Public Safety Division, Brannon worked for the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, eighteen (18) to twenty (20) days, a month maximum. Following Brannon's dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he also requested social security disability benefits in the summer of 1980, and that claim is now pending.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 9, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. See §§ 943.12(3) and 943.1395, Fla. Stat. (2004). Mr. Rendon is a Florida-certified law enforcement and corrections officer. Mr. Rendon's first contact with Sheila Smith and Kimberly Ann Sturtz, Mrs. Smith's daughter, was in November 1998, when Ms. Sturtz called the police after an argument with her mother. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Sturtz was a child under 16 years of age. In December 1998, Mr. Rendon was dispatched to the Smith residence when Mrs. Smith called the police as a result of a fight with her son, Travis Caley. Mr. Rendon arrested Travis on December 2, 1998, and Travis was subsequently placed in a foster home. Mr. Rendon developed an interest in Travis and the Smith family, and he periodically contacted a representative of the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to check on Travis's situation. Mr. Rendon also talked to Travis on the telephone. Mr. Rendon often telephoned Mrs. Smith or went to the Smith residence to give her news about Travis, and Mrs. Smith often telephoned Mr. Rendon. Mr. Rendon had Mrs. Smith's and Kimberly's cell phone and pager numbers, and he used a code when he paged them, so they would know to call him back. He frequently paged Kimberly during the day. Mr. Rendon visited the Smith residence several times when Mr. and Mrs. Smith were home. He also stopped at the Smith residence when Mr. and Mrs. Smith were not at home and Ms. Sturtz was at the residence alone or with a friend named Alicia Cox, who lived across the street from the Smith residence. During these visits, Ms. Sturtz and Mr. Rendon talked but generally stayed outside the house, on the porch or in the yard. Mr. Rendon's visits to the Smith residence were not as frequent between February and April 1999, during the time Mr. Rendon was assigned to patrol an area of Lake County that was a considerable distance from the Smith's residence. His visits increased after April 1999, when he was assigned to patrol an area that included the Smith's residence. During this time, he often visited Ms. Sturtz when her parents were not at home. On May 27, 1999, Mr. Rendon stopped at the Smith's residence at a time when Ms. Sturtz was alone. Mr. Rendon and Ms. Sturtz sat on the porch for a while, talking. During this conversation, Ms. Sturtz told Mr. Rendon that she had a "crush" on him. Ms. Sturtz and Mr. Rendon subsequently entered the house, where Mr. Rendon asked Ms. Sturtz what she would do if he kissed her; Ms. Sturtz told him that she would probably kiss him back. Ms. Sturtz's back was against the wall inside the door, and Mr. Rendon held Ms. Sturtz's hands over her head; he kissed her; asked her to stick out her tongue so that he could suck on it; ran his hands down the sides of her body, grazing the sides of her breasts; lifted her skirt; licked and kissed the area around her navel; and stuck his tongue in her navel. Ms. Sturtz became frightened and asked Mr. Rendon to stop, which Mr. Rendon did. Ms. Sturtz observed that Mr. Rendon appeared to be sexually aroused during the incident and had a wet spot on the front of his trousers. Ms. Sturtz was 14 years old at the time of this incident. Mr. Rendon was arrested on June 9, 1999, for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 16 years of age. On or about October 13, 2000, Mr. Rendon entered a plea of nolo contendere to two charges of misdemeanor battery, defined in Section 784.03, in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit in Lake County, Florida. These charges were based on the incident involving Ms. Sturtz that took place at the Smith residence on May 27, 1999. A judgment was entered adjudicating Mr. Rendon guilty of these crimes. The evidence presented by the Commission is sufficient to establish that Mr. Rendon failed to maintain good moral character. He touched Ms. Sturtz in a lewd and lascivious manner on May 27, 1999, and his actions also constituted misdemeanor battery.2
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 finding that David Rendon failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1999), and that his certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lockman, Jr., is, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, has been a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued certificate number 02- 15677 by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Richard Lockman was employed by the Town of Windermere Police Department from March 18, 1980 through May 22, 1987. During the relevant periods of 1986 and 1987, his rank was sergeant. His immediate supervisor was the Windermere police chief, Jeffrey C. Villella. From summer 1986 until April 1987, Chief Villella was building a personal residence and was absent from the police department for several days each week, using accrued leave time. In the chief's absence, being next in rank, Sgt. Lockman was generally in charge of the daily affairs of the department. Sgt. Lockman began hearing and became aware of irregularities in the chief's administrative practices. A town council member, Pete Wages, approached Sgt. Lockman and asked about Chief Villella's use of a police vehicle for personal business, and later asked about discrepancies in the chief's time sheets. On another occasion, Councilman Wages asked him about the chief's operation of a private security guard business while in his police department office. Each time Sgt. Lockman provided information that tended to support the councilman's suspicions. From other sources, Lockman heard stories about the possibility that the son of the contractor who was building Chief Villella's house was involved in drugs. Lockman was concerned that the chief did not aggressively pursue drug investigations, but rather was more interested in burglaries in the Town of Windermere. Someone reported that tangible evidence was not being properly handled at the police department. John P. Luff was part-time city manager for the Town of Windermere from January through June 1987. He and Forrest Danson, a council member who was designated "police commissioner", were responsible for reviewing the activities of the police department. John Luff was aware of friction between Chief Villella and Sgt. Lockman but ascribed it to a personality conflict. He considered both men to be honest. After the allegations came to his attention, John Luff discussed them with Chief Villella and the chief denied them. When Luff reviewed the police time sheets he had no basis to question them. Luff also believed that Villella's use of his vehicle was proper. At some point Villella told him that Wages and Lockman were out to get the chief's job. During the controversy, one day in early 1987, Sgt. Lockman was arriving for duty when Chief Villella apprehended him from the vicinity of Councilman Wages' office. The chief ordered him to his office in what Lockman considered was an uncharacteristically agitated manner. Lockman was concerned about his job as he knew that he had been furnishing information to Councilman Wages. Lockman also felt that in his agitation, Chief Villella might threaten him or insist that he stop investigating the chief's activities. Without Chief Villella's permission, and using a small concealed tape recorder, Lockman taped a portion of their conversation in the chief's office that day. The session never produced the anticipated threats nor any "smoking gun". Rather Chief Villella was upset that Sgt. Lockman had failed to inform him of an important meeting, saying "Once again you have discredited me and this department." Sgt. Lockman found the notice of the meeting under a pile of papers on the chief's desk, and the meeting ended. Sgt. Lockman had taped a counseling session on another occasion, but with the chief's permission. The above incident is the first and only time he operated his microrecorder surreptitiously in a meeting with the chief. On or about May 1, 1987, Sgt. Lockman was summoned again to Chief Villella's office and was stripped of his authority and his vehicle. Lockman surmised this was the result of the chief's learning the full details of his disclosures to Councilman Wages. The next day, Lockman met with John Luff and with Councilman Danson at town hall. He was upset at having been demoted. He played the tape for the two men, saying that he wanted to show them what he had to do to protect himself. He did not state that he had been conducting a criminal investigation, but he assured Councilman Danson that the tape was legal because he (Lockman) had been a party to the taped conversation. Lockman asked that a full independent investigation be done of the police department, but failed to provide specific details to John Luff's satisfaction. Lockman denied that he was out to "get" Jeff Villella. No independent investigation was conducted. Against the recommendation of the police complaint review board constituted under the policeman's bill of rights, the town council terminated Sgt. Lockman the end of May, 1987. After the termination, Jeff Villella found out about the taped conversation from Forrest Danson and John Luff. He was able to identify the occasion of the meeting from the quoted phrase, "Once again you have discredited me and the department". Upon advice, Villella reported the incident to the Orange County Sheriff's department and to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Criminal charges were brought against Richard Lockman, but were dismissed in a pre-trial intervention procedure. Richard Lockman sued the town and various individuals in federal court. The jury found that he had been wrongfully discharged as a "whistle blower", and awarded damages and reinstatement pursuant to Section 112.3187(9), F.S. The case is on appeal. According to one witness, the upheaval surrounding Windermere's police department was typical small town politics. There was no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing by Chief Villella, although there was some evidence of casual or sloppy administrative practices. Richard Lockman exercised poor professional judgement by allowing himself to become part of the factionalism and by not reporting his concerns to an outside authority such as the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. He undertook his own private investigation. The circumstances surrounding Richard Lockman's intercept of Chief Villella's conversation reflect both fear for his job and zeal for his investigation. Those circumstances do not clearly establish the violation alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint against Richard C. Lockman, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 31st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4539 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in substance in paragraph #8 and 4. Adopted in paragraph #4. Adopted in paragraph #8. Respondent Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraphs #2 and 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #4. and 5. Rejected as irrelevant. and 8. Adopted in part in paragraph #8. The record does not establish that and Villella had just met with the council member. Adopted in paragraph #12. Adopted in paragraph #13. Adopted in paragraph #16. Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the record in this proceeding. Adopted in paragraph #15. Adopted in substance in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #10. through 19. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Thomas J. Pilacek, Esq. Springs Offices 2101 W. State Road 434 Suite 105 Longwood, FL 32774 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the certification, and the revocation of certification, of officers and instructors in the criminal justice disciplines. Mr. Marchetti was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on August 30, 2008, and was issued law enforcement certificate number 278005. Mr. Marchetti was not employed by a criminal justice agency on October 30, 2016. On that date, in the early afternoon, Deputy Lawhorn was working as a road patrol deputy with Deputy Brewster, her field training officer (FTO), during an early phase of her training. The deputies arrived at 108 Petals Road in Fort Pierce in their marked patrol unit to serve an injunction for protection, a civil restraining order, directed to Timothy Marchetti. The deputies were to identify the person to be served, provide him a copy of the injunction papers, explain what the order required, and advise of the court date. The deputies knocked on the door, and Mr. Marchetti answered the door. The deputies, wearing St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office uniforms in plain view of Mr. Marchetti, announced that they were there to serve process on Timothy Marchetti and asked to speak with him. Mr. Marchetti falsely identified himself as his brother, Mark Marchetti, with a date of birth of September 15, 1983. Mr. Marchetti added that he was often mistaken for his brother. The deputies asked when Timothy Marchetti would be returning. Mr. Marchetti responded that Timothy was at church with his mother and should return shortly. The paperwork that the deputies had been provided prior to serving the injunction included a driver's license photo, and that photo appeared to match the individual the deputies were talking to. The paperwork also indicated that Timothy Marchetti had an identifying mark, a tattoo on his biceps. When asked to see his biceps, Mr. Marchetti instead showed the deputies his triceps, which had no tattoo. Believing that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them, but wanting to continue to investigate because sometimes brothers do bear close physical resemblance, Deputy Brewster asked Deputy Lawhorn to return to the patrol unit to run the name "Mark Marchetti" through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. At the vehicle, she also pulled up a picture of Mark Marchetti from the DAVID website. That picture did not match the driver's license picture in the deputies' possession or the appearance of the individual that had answered the door. Deputy Lawhorn returned to the doorway, told Deputy Brewster what she had learned and asked him to check the information. After Deputy Brewster went to the vehicle, Mr. Marchetti attempted to leave. Deputy Lawhorn blocked his way and advised him that he could not leave. Mr. Marchetti had not yet been arrested. The deputies had a well-founded suspicion that Mr. Marchetti had lied to them about his identity, and they were continuing their investigation of that crime. At this point, a woman who identified herself as Mr. Marchetti's mother came to the property and encountered Deputy Brewster. She confirmed that the individual in the doorway was her son, Timothy Marchetti. Deputy Brewster returned to the doorway and advised Mr. Marchetti that he was under arrest. After his arrest, the deputies placed themselves on either side of Mr. Marchetti to handcuff him, and Respondent pulled away in "surprise or shock" as he was being handcuffed, but there was minimal, if any, active physical resistance. After his arrest, Mr. Marchetti apologized to Deputy Brewster for lying to him about his identity. Through his deception, Mr. Marchetti resisted, obstructed, and opposed Deputies Lawhorn and Brewster in their execution of legal process. Mr. Marchetti failed to maintain good moral character in that he willfully obstructed law enforcement officers in the lawful execution of their duty to serve an injunction against him by giving them a false name and date of birth. No evidence of any prior disciplinary history was introduced for Mr. Marchetti.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Timothy J. Marchetti in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and suspending his certification for a period of five days, followed by a one-year period of probation subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 January, 2019.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Petitioner, Deputy Michael Hughes, violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; and (2) Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.1.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: At all times pertinent to this case, Deputy Hughes was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. At the time of hearing, Deputy Hughes had over eighteen years' experience with the Sheriff's Office. On January 12, 2002, Deputy Hughes was working as a deputy sheriff and as a Field Training Officer in the Field Training Section of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. He was accompanied throughout his shift by a trainee, Deputy Mark Shorter. At approximately 2:55 a.m. on January 12, 2002, Deputies Hughes and Shorter responded to 5125 Betty Street in St. Petersburg to assist Deputies Michael Pulham and Vance Nussbaum, who were already on the scene of a traffic stop where the driver was suspected of having active warrants for his arrest. Deputies Hughes and Shorter had already responded to two calls at 5125 Betty Street, both involving complaints by neighbors that persons in the house were causing a public disturbance. After the traffic stop, the deputies noticed yet another disturbance occurring in the residence at 5125 Betty Street. The four deputies entered the residence. As the deputies walked in, one of the occupants, later identified as Donald Hillebrand, punched Deputy Hughes in the mouth with his closed fist. The deputies attempted to place Mr. Hillebrand under arrest for battery upon a law enforcement officer. A melee ensued between the four deputies and several occupants of the residence. Donald Hillebrand was subdued, handcuffed, and arrested. Two women who participated in the fight were also arrested. Mr. Hillebrand was then escorted to Deputy Hughes’ cruiser and placed in the rear seat, without the use of a seat belt. Two other arrestees, Lisa Ruthven and Barbara Metzler, were placed in the rear of the Pulham/Nussbaum cruiser for transport. Because several other people were coming out of the residence and the situation remained volatile, the deputies decided they would regroup at a more secure location a short distance from the Betty Street residence to complete their paperwork on the arrests. From the time he was placed in the back of the cruiser, Mr. Hillebrand spewed a stream of racial invective at Deputies Hughes and Shorter in the front. Mr. Hillebrand is white. Deputies Hughes and Shorter are black. Lt. John Bocchichio, the shift commander, met the four deputies at the secure location. He noted that Mr. Hillebrand was screaming "nigger this and nigger that" from the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser. While Deputies Hughes and Shorter completed their paperwork at the rear of their cruiser, Lt. Bocchichio opened the door of the cruiser, leaned into the car, and attempted to speak to Mr. Hillebrand in an effort to calm him. Mr. Hillebrand continued yelling and screaming, and eventually spit at Lt. Bocchichio, who gave up and closed the door of the cruiser. Lt. Bocchichio did not tell Deputy Hughes that Mr. Hillebrand spit at him, but he thought Deputy Hughes might have seen the spitting through the rear window of the cruiser. Alex Metzler, another participant in the brawl at the Betty Street residence, rode up to the secure location on a bicycle. He claimed he was merely riding to a store, but the deputies believed he was there to interfere with them. The deputies arrested him, handcuffed him, and placed him in the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser along with Mr. Hillebrand. Mr. Metzler was seated on the passenger's side, and Mr. Hillebrand was seated on the driver's side of the back seat. Both men were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. The cruiser had a plexiglass shield behind the driver's side of the front seat, and a steel cage behind the passenger's side of the front seat. Deputies Hughes and Shorter, with Shorter driving the cruiser, commenced their travel to the Pinellas County Jail facility, located at 144th Avenue and 49th Street in Clearwater. Mr. Hillebrand continued his tirade at both Deputy Hughes and Shorter, calling them "niggers," inviting them to "suck his dick," and offering to perform various sex acts on their mothers. While the cruiser was traveling on 49th Street approaching 144th Avenue, Mr. Hillebrand leaned over to Mr. Metzler’s side of the police cruiser and spit through the steel cage into the face of Deputy Hughes. Deputy Hughes instructed Deputy Shorter to stop the vehicle. Deputy Shorter stopped the cruiser in the left-hand turn lane at the intersection of 49th Street and 144th Avenue, within sight of the jail. After the cruiser was stopped, Deputy Hughes exited the vehicle, walked around the rear of the vehicle and opened the rear driver’s side door. Mr. Hillebrand was lying on the back seat across Mr. Metzler. Deputy Hughes admitted that he was angry at being spat upon, but maintained that his purpose in stopping and exiting the vehicle was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him a second time by securing his seatbelt. Deputy Hughes reached into the back seat of the vehicle in an attempt to make Mr. Hillebrand sit up on his side of the seat. Mr. Hillebrand resisted. Deputy Hughes noted that Mr. Hillebrand was on top of the seat belt buckle and decided that he needed to remove Mr. Hillebrand from the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand continued to resist, lying back on the seat and using his legs and feet to prevent his removal from the vehicle. Deputy Hughes leaned into the vehicle in order to grasp Mr. Hillebrand's shoulders to gain hold of him. At this point, Mr. Hillebrand agreed to cooperate. He sat up, turned to sit sideways in the vehicle and placed his feet on the ground outside of the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand then stood up outside the cruiser. Deputy Hughes testified that he thought Mr. Hillebrand was attempting to head-butt him, though he admitted that Mr. Hillebrand's actions were also consistent with the moves that a handcuffed person would have to employ to exit a vehicle. In response to the perceived head-butt, Deputy Hughes struck Mr. Hillebrand in the chest with a forearm strike and followed with a knee strike to the abdomen. Deputy Hughes briefly pinned Mr. Hillebrand against the rear quarter panel of the cruiser, then returned him to the back seat and attempted to fasten Mr. Hillebrand with the seat belt. Deputy Hughes was unable to fasten the seat belt because the buckle had worked its way under the back seat. Deputy Hughes looped the shoulder harness portion of the seat belt over Mr. Hillebrand’s chest and tucked the end of it underneath the seat to give Mr. Hillebrand the impression that the seat belt was properly fastened. Deputy Hughes closed the rear door of the vehicle and returned to his own seat in the cruiser. Deputy Shorter resumed the drive to the Pinellas County Jail, which took no more than two minutes. Mr. Hillebrand was turned over to corrections officers without further incident and charged with two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer (one for punching Deputy Hughes and one for spitting on Deputy Hughes) and one count of resisting an officer with violence. Deputy Hughes admitted that he did not prepare a use of force report as to this incident. His arrest report detailed the brawl at the Betty Street residence, but made no mention of the subsequent stop after Mr. Hillebrand spit on him. After the incident, Mr. Hillebrand's mother filed a complaint alleging the physical abuse of Donald Hillebrand during the course of the arrest. The complaint triggered an investigation by the Inspections Bureau of the Sheriff's Office regarding the incidents leading to the arrest of Mr. Hillebrand and the use of force by Deputy Hughes and the other deputies involved. At the conclusion of the investigation, an Administrative Review Board reviewed the allegations and evidence compiled by the Inspections Bureau and determined that Deputy Hughes had violated the Pinellas County Civil Service Act and the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Shriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board's memorandum, dated August 3, 2002, set forth the following specific violations: Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 5.15 relating to the Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners, to-wit: Arrestees/Prisoners shall be kept secured and treated humanely and shall not be subjected to physical abuse. The use of physical force shall be restricted to circumstances specified by law when necessary to accomplish a police task. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you removed a secured prisoner from the rear of your cruiser while enroute [sic] to the jail and subjected him to physical force, which was not specified by law or necessary to accomplish a police task. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 3.20, relating to the Use of Force Reporting, to wit: Whenever a member either on or off duty, is required to use physical force against another person, the member shall immediately notify a supervisor of the action taken and complete the necessary documentation for review. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you used physical force against another person, but failed to complete the necessary Use of Force Report for review. The Administrative Review Board did not conclude that Deputy Hughes pulled Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser for the purpose of abusing him, or that Deputy Hughes used such force as would constitute a violation of state law or the United States Constitution. The Board unanimously concluded that the force utilized with regard to Mr. Hillebrand was unnecessary and served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, thereby violating General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. The Board found that Deputy Hughes' actions toward Mr. Hillebrand were inappropriate, given that his reason for stopping the car and commencing the chain of events that led to his use of force was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him again. The Board found that Deputy Hughes could have avoided being spit on without pulling Mr. Hillebrand out of the vehicle, and thus that there was no legitimate law enforcement purpose served by his use of force. The Board noted several factors to support its finding. Deputy Hughes stopped the cruiser less than two minutes from the jail, where corrections officers could have taken Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser without the use of force. Deputy Hughes could have found something in the cruiser, such as a rain slicker, to place over the cage behind him and block any further spit from the rear of the vehicle. Once the prisoner was secure and in custody, Deputy Hughes' primary duty was to transport him safely to jail without exposing the prisoner, the law enforcement officers, or the public to the risk of further injury. By stopping the vehicle and opening the rear of the caged and locked police cruiser, Deputy Hughes exposed himself, his partner, both prisoners, and possibly the general public to an unnecessary risk of injury. Deputy Hughes' actions created the situation that resulted in the need to use force on Mr. Hillebrand, and those actions were not necessary to accomplish the primary police task of transporting Mr. Hillebrand safely to the jail without further incident or injury. In short, the Board found that Deputy Hughes used appropriate force for the situation, but found that he violated regulations by allowing the situation to develop in the first place. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides guidelines for imposition of discipline by an Administrative Review Board, including a point system based on the number and severity of violations. The violations found against Deputy Hughes resulted in a cumulative point total of 65 points: 50 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners and 15 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides that the point total accumulated by Deputy Hughes allows for discipline ranging from a seven-day suspension to termination of employment. Deputy Hughes received the minimum seven-day suspension. Deputy Hughes appealed only the finding with regard to the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. Deputy Hughes did not contest the finding that he violated General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Deputy Hughes contended that he acted in self-defense to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from continuing to spit on him. This contention was illogical. By opening the rear of the vehicle and manhandling his prisoner, Deputy Hughes made it easier for Mr. Hillebrand to spit on him again. Further, the self-defense contention was beside the point, as the Sheriff's Office did not allege that Deputy Hughes had no right to protect himself. Rather, the Administrative Review Board found that Deputy Hughes chose the worst of several possible methods to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him. The essential finding was that Deputy Hughes used poor judgment, not that he used excessive force. Deputy Hughes also contended that the Sheriff's Office was at fault for not equipping his cruiser with restraints designed to prevent prisoners from spitting. Whatever the value of such restraints, their absence did not prevent Deputy Hughes from improvising a protective device from the materials available in his cruiser. Finally, Deputy Hughes pointed to the fact that the Sheriff's office has no rule or regulation prohibiting a deputy from attempting to seat belt a prisoner in the rear of the vehicle to prevent him from spitting through the open portion of the cage. It defies reason to contend that the Sheriff's Office must develop a rule or regulation for every possible condition that may occur in the field, or that an experienced deputy may abandon common sense in the absence of a rule or regulation covering a situation in which he finds himself. The evidence presented at the hearing fully supported the findings of the Administrative Review Board and the penalty imposed upon Deputy Hughes for the violation of General Order 3- 1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Michael E. Hughes guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in the August 3, 2002, inter-office memorandum and upholding the suspension of Michael E. Hughes from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office for a period of seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Afienko, Esquire Kenneth J. Afienko, P.A. 560 1 Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Jean H. Kwall, General Counsel Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter 943, Florida Statutes for alleged conduct as set forth in Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 16, 1982. This proceeding was initiated by an administrative complaint issued by the Police Standards and Training Commission on May 26, 1981, alleging certain grounds under Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, for the suspension or revocation of Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and the case was thereafter set for hearing on September 15, 1981. Pursuant to a request for a continuance by the Petitioner, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for March 16, 1982. The case was again continued upon motion of Petitioner due to injuries sustained by its counsel. A prehearing conference was held on March 9, 1982 at which time the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission was substituted as the Petitioner in this proceeding, pursuant to Section 943.255, Florida Statutes. The final hearing was rescheduled for April 13, 1982. Thereafter, on March 31, 1982, L. Sanford Selvey, II, Esquire filed a Motion for Continuance based on the incapacity of Respondent's counsel, M. Howard Williams, Esquire as a result of an apparent heart attack. The motion requested that final hearing be continued until such time as Mr. Williams had recovered from his illness. The motion was granted and final hearing was cancelled by Order, dated April 7, 1982, wherein counsel for Respondent was directed to advise the Hearing Officer within thirty days as to when he anticipated medical recovery. On April 20, 1982, Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint seeking disciplinary action pursuant to subsection 943.145(3)(a), F.S. for failure to maintain qualifications for certification under subsection 943.13(4) and (7), F.S. On May 19, 1982, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted and Amended Complaint Filed. No opposition was filed against this motion and it was granted by Order dated June 7, 1982. That Order provided that the final hearing was rescheduled for July 21, 1982, in view of the failure of counsel for Respondent to advise the Hearing Officer as to his anticipated date of medical recovery. A copy of the Order was furnished to M. Howard Williams, Esquire and L. Sanford Selvey, II, Esquire. Neither Respondent nor his counsel appeared at the final hearing on July 21, 1982. Upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, counsel for Petitioner stated that he had previously been advised by Mr. Selvey's office that the case files of Mr. Williams had been referred by the Circuit Court to Dexter Douglas, Esquire as an inventory attorney, and that upon inquiring of Mr. Douglas' office, he was informed that two letters had been sent to Respondent informing him of the hearing date in this proceeding. Upon direction of the Hearing Officer, counsel for Petitioner again contacted Mr. Douglas' office to ascertain if any response to the letters had been made by Respondent. Counsel was advised that letters, dated June 29 and June 30, 1982, had been sent to Respondent, advising him of the date of hearing and of the need to obtain representation, but no response was received. Based upon these representations, and under all the circumstances, it was determined that adequate notice of the hearing had been provided Respondent, and Petitioner was permitted to proceed with presentation of its case as an uncontested proceeding. Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted four exhibits in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Earl Junior Beagles, was first employed with the Tallahassee Police Department in January, 1967. He received certification as a "grandfathered" law enforcement officer in June of 1967. In 1979, he was a sergeant in charge of the Vice and Narcotics unit of the Police Department. (Testimony of Tucker, Westfall) In November or December of 1979, Respondent obtained $200 from the Police Department informant fund upon authorization of Police Chief Melvin Tucker. At the time, Respondent told Chief Tucker that he wanted the funds to compromise a prostitute in order to obtain access to a local drug dealer. In March, 1980, one Patricia Dalton made allegations to police officials that on December 19, 1979, Respondent had coerced her into having sexual relations with him. Specifically, she told police investigators that she was a prostitute and had previously received a telephone call from someone identifying himself as "Bill", and that they arranged to meet at a local motel. At that meeting in the motel room, they arrived at an understanding that she would furnish her services for $150. She produced a small portion of cocaine, at which point Respondent placed her under arrest for drug possession and prostitution whereupon she commenced to cry, but Respondent told her that he was sure they could work things out and make a deal. Respondent turned the cocaine over to his partner, Officer Lewis Donaldson, and told him that he would take Miss Dalton home. She alleged that she departed with Respondent and that later, at his request, she registered at another hotel under a fictitious name where he coerced her into having sexual intercourse and fellatio with him. (Testimony of Tucker, Coe) Police investigators verified the fact that Miss Dalton had been transported in a taxicab to the motel where she had allegedly met Respondent on December 19, 1979, and also that she had registered under a fictitious name at the second motel on that date. As part of the investigation, Miss Dalton was equipped with a "body wire" to enable the investigators to monitor a conversation that she had with Respondent at the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee. Although the investigators observed Miss Dalton enter the bus station, they did not personally see Respondent from their monitoring location nearby. However, they were able to recognize his voice from the tape recording made of the conversation. Respondent made admissions during the conversation which gave credence to Dalton's contentions that he had had prior sexual relations with her and had not pursued criminal charges against her. A transcript of the conversation shows that he made the following statements to her: "No, you're unarrested, no charges, forget it, it's over. Call it washed clean." and "For God's sake, don't mention my deal about dropping those God-damn charges". Police records reflect that Respondent never initiated charges against Patricia Dalton and that he returned the entire amount of $200 which he had obtained from the informant fund. (Testimony of Coe, Runo, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) As a result of the investigation, Respondent was indicted for sexual battery, extortion, and bribery in the Leon County Circuit Court on April 23, 1980. On that date, Chief Tucker advised Respondent of the Dalton complaint, but Respondent denied all of her allegations of misconduct. Respondent was then suspended from his employment with the Police force pending disposition of the criminal charges. (Testimony of Tucker, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4) On October 17, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of unlawful compensation (Section 838.016, F.S.) which is a third degree felony, and one count of simple assault which is a misdemeanor. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld and he was placed on probation for a period of two years. In the opinion of Chief Tucker and Lieutenant Thomas R. Coe, Jr. of the Tallahassee Police Department, Respondent's actions in connection with the Dalton incident did not meet the required standards of moral character required for certification as a law enforcement officer. After the indictment, Respondent was discharged from his employment with the Department. (Testimony of Tucker, Coe, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Although hearsay testimony was received from a police investigator concerning another incident of sexual misconduct involving another alleged prostitute in 1977, insufficient competent evidence was received upon which to base findings of fact. (Testimony of Runo)
Recommendation That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order revoking the certification of Respondent as a law enforcement officer. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Earl Junior Beagles Star Route, Box 506B Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Sheriff Don R. Moreland Chairman Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Marion County Sheriff's Department P. O. Box 1987 Ocala, Florida 32670 M. Howard Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 382 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William S. Westfall, Jr., Bureau Chief Bureau of Standards Division of Criminal Justice Standards & Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact In April, 1986, Lee was employed by HRS as a secretary in the Human Services Program Office. She reported to work on April 25, 1986, which was a payday. On the next regular day of work (April 28, 1986), Lee telephoned her office to request leave, explaining that her daughter had sprained her ankle and had to be taken to the doctor. Leave for this day was approved. Lee did not report to work on April 29, 30, or May 1, 1986, and she did not speak to her supervisor, Charles Lauria, on any of these dates to request leave. She testified that her sister notified the office that she was taking more leave, but the sister was not at the hearing to verify this statement. Lee did not report to work on May 2, 5, 6, 7 or 8, 1986, all of which were normal work days. Lee did not contact her supervisor or her office during this period. Charles Lauria was Lee's supervisor. When he had not heard from Lee by May 7, 1986, he reported to the local personnel office that Lee had abandoned her job and should be terminated. Lauria had previously warned Lee that failure to appear at work without prior approval could result in disciplinary action or termination. Lee signed a disciplinary memorandum indicating that she should personally contact Lauria in the event she would have to miss work for any reason. The HRS personnel office (David Porter) recommended to the District Administrator that Lee be terminated for violating the abandonment provision of the HRS personnel rules. On May 7, 1986, a letter of termination was mailed to Lee, notifying her that she had been terminated as of this date. On May 9, 1986, Lee reported to work. May 9 was a payday, the first payday since Lee's last appearance at work on April 25, 1986. She was given verbal notice of her termination at this time. Lee was aware of the abandonment provision in the HRS rules. She had acknowledged receipt of a copy of the rules upon commencing work at HRS. She had previously had problems regarding attendance, and had been counseled as to the importance of personally contacting her supervisor when she could not report for work. Lee missed seven consecutive days of work prior to being terminated by HRS. HRS attempted to contact Lee prior to terminating her, but was unable to locate her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order terminating the employment of the Respondent, Rebanner Lee, from her position as a secretary in the Human Services Program Office, for abandonment, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 7, 1987. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 19th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2072 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1-11. Accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Accepted, but prior authorization to take leave had not been granted. These are argumentative and not proposed factual findings. They are thus rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens Department of Administration General Counsel 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rebanner Lee, in pro se Post Office Box 192 Starke, Florida 32091
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Between July 25, 1977, and August 10, 1978, petitioner, Douglas A. Charity, was employed with the Division of Security, Department of General Services, first as a Capitol Security Officer I and then as a Surveillance Systems Operator. Thereafter, petitioner was employed for approximately ten months as a legislative intern budget analyst with the Senate Ways and Means Committee. From there, he was employed between June and November of 1979 as a research analyst with the Citizens Council for Budget Research. One of his prime projects in this position was a review and analysis of the Division of Motor Pools in the Department of General Services (DGA). From December of 1979 through August 27, 1980, petitioner was unemployed. He desired to find a position in an administrative, analytical or consulting capacity but was unsuccessful in finding employment. On August 27, 1980, petitioner was offered employment with the Division of Security within DGS. Based upon prior conversations, it was orally agreed between petitioner and administrators within the Division of Security that petitioner would be assigned to and be paid at the salary level for the position classified as a Capitol Security Officer I. The salary for this position was approximately $8,000.00 per year. It was further agreed that petitioner would not wear a uniform nor would he perform the duties normally required of a Capitol Security Officer. Instead, it was agreed that petitioner would perform duties normally required of a Capitol Security Officer. Instead, it was agreed that petitioner would perform duties of an "administrative" nature and assist with the preparation and writing of a four-year plan containing an analysis of the Division of Security. Because the preparation of the four-year plan was not expected to take long and because the salary for a Capitol Security Officer was not as high as petitioner desired, it was anticipated by those within the Division of Security that petitioner would continue to seek other employment. Petitioner did, in fact, continue to seek other employment. One of his reasons for accepting employment with the Division of Security was to enhance his possibilities for employment in an administrative, analytical or consulting capacity through his record at DGS which would show his work on the four-year plan. Some two and a half months prior to petitioner's employment with the Division of Security on August 27, 1980, an outline for the four-year plan had already been prepared and approved. The purpose of the plan was to review the function and performance of the Division of Security and to set a plan for structural and program development and change. A portion of the plan pertained to position descriptions and classifications and the Division of Security's need for additional positions classified as management analyst and administrative assistant. The plan ultimately concluded that such positions were not needed within the Division of Security. The four-year plan was completed in February of 1981. In addition to his work on the four-year plan, both before and after February of 1981, petitioner performed duties in the following areas: reports on security personnel, procedures and problems; administrative correspondence and paperwork; budget issues; legislative bill analysis; and the attendance of meetings with DGS officials and legislative staff persons. His duties varied from day to day, dependent upon instructions he received from the Division Director or Assistant Director. Construing the facts presented at the hearing with respect to the duties actually performed by petitioner from August 27, 1980 through January 10, 1982, in a manner most favorable to petitioner, his actual duties compared with the job description for the classification of Administrative Assistant I. During the entire period in question, petitioner was classified as and received the salary of a Capitol Security Officer I. He never wore a uniform and he never performed the duties of a Capitol Security Officer I which duties included patrolling and maintaining the security of the Capitol Building and Legislative facilities on an assigned shift, locking doors, raising and lowering flags, maintaining logs and related security duties. Petitioner's immediate superiors within the Division of Security, as well as the Executive Director and those within the personnel office of DGS, were aware that petitioner was performing out-of-class duties for the Division of Security. Various efforts were made by DGS officials to help petitioner find employment in a higher position. The possibility of creating a management analyst position in another Division was considered, but that position was never established. Petitioner did not qualify for such a position until approximately October of 1981. The Chief of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services performed an audit of the Division of Security to ascertain if additional administrative positions were needed. While the first draft of the audit report recommended a reorganization of the Division to include an Administrative Assistant I position, it was ultimately concluded that the Division needed only two administrative positions -- the Director and the Assistant Director. Petitioner was informed of a position as an Assistant Facilities Services Coordinator in the Bureau of Property Management, but chose not to apply for that position. Though efforts were made by officials within DGS to either create a higher position for petitioner or place him in a vacant higher position, petitioner was never promised a specific position. Instead, he was informed of possibilities for placement in the future. He was also told that should such positions become established or available, he would have to qualify for the position and compete with other applicants. Petitioner discussed his increasing frustrations with his employment situation with officials within DGS. He also sought advice from a Personnel Program Analyst with the Department of Administration (DOA). She advised him that he could request an audit of his position through his supervisor, his own personnel officer or the DOA Bureau of Program Assistance, whose function is to perform desk audits to ascertain whether the duties performed by an employee are the same as the position description for that employee. She also informed petitioner that he could resolve his difficulties through the career service system or the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. She indicated to him that he may wish to wait and see if the management analyst position (which had been discussed) would become available, in which case the problem might resolve itself if he were able to fill that position. The Department of Administration was never furnished with a current position description accurately reflecting the duties of petitioner's position. No one ever requested the DOA's Bureau of Program Assistance to perform a desk audit appraisal of petitioner's duties and classification, and petitioner's position was not among those randomly selected for desk audit review. By late November and throughout December of 1981, officials within DGS were becoming increasingly concerned with the fact that petitioner was performing out-of-class duties. Though efforts were maintained to find a position for petitioner which would more accurately reflect his actual job duties, such efforts were not successful. In mid-December 1981, petitioner filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. After the final draft of the audit of the Division of Security indicated that no additional administrative positions were needed in that Division, petitioner was informed that he would be required to cease out-of-class work and that he must commence to perform the official duties of a Capitol Security Officer I effective January 11, 1982. Petitioner did assume the duties of a Capitol Security Officer on January 11, 1982, and has since functioned in that capacity.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the relief sought by petitioner from the Department of General Services and the Department of Administration be DENIED, and that the petitions filed in Case Nos. 82-2733 and 82-3381 be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Beitler, Esquire Post Office Box 12921 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Beason, Esquire Suite 858, Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Secretary Nevin Smith Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Brown, Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
