The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been certified as a Correctional Officer in the State of Florida since March 9, 1994. There was no evidence that he had been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. At all times material to this proceeding, the Department employed Respondent as a Correctional Officer. 2/ On December 21, 1999, Respondent reported for his scheduled duty shift at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center (the TGK Center). The TGK Center is a jail located in Miami-Dade County and operated by the Department. Respondent was scheduled to work the shift beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 2:30 p.m. On December 21, 1999, Respondent was assigned as a unit manager at the TGK Center. His responsibilities included the care, custody, and control of all inmates in his assigned unit of the facility. Respondent was responsible for conducting visual inspections of the unit and inmate headcounts. Visual inspections and inmate headcounts are separate procedures. In a visual inspection, the officer looks for anything out of the ordinary by walking around the entire unit, looking into each cell, and checking on all inmates. In a headcount, the officer accounts for the presence of each inmate by counting the inmates in the unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was required to document his activities at the TGK Center by making written entries in a Unit Logbook. Upon reporting for duty at 6:30 a.m., Respondent made an entry in the Unit Logbook recording the time, his presence on duty at "0630," and his receipt of certain equipment from the previous shift. Respondent made a second entry in the Unit Logbook at 6:43 a.m. As the first line of the second entry, Respondent inserted in the Unit Logbook the following: "0643-Visual check of unit/inmates all app QRU." The first line of the second entry would convey to other officers reviewing the Unit Logbook that Respondent had determined through a visual inspection that all was well throughout the unit at approximately 6:43 a.m. 3/ As the second line of the second entry, Respondent inserted in the Unit Logbook the following: "H/C B W H." That entry would convey to other officers reviewing the Unit Logbook that Respondent had intended to conduct an inmate headcount and list each inmate in one of the following categories: Black, White, or Hispanic. Because no numbers were inserted next to each designated category, it would have been clear to other officers reviewing the Unit Logbook that Respondent had not completed the inmate headcount. Respondent became preoccupied with preparations for serving the inmates their morning meal, which he intended to serve early because he was expecting supplies to be delivered that morning. Respondent did not complete the headcount he had intended to take. Shortly before 9:30 a.m., Respondent assigned an inmate trustee to assist him with the meal preparations and told the trustee to find another inmate to help. The trustee then went to another part of the unit to look for another inmate to help with preparations for the meal. Shortly thereafter, Respondent heard the inmate trustee screaming, and Respondent immediately went to investigate. At 9:30 a.m., Respondent arrived at cell 5520 and observed inmate Carlos Nevis hanging in front of the window of the door. Mr. Nevis' body was readily observable from outside the room through the window of the door. Rigor mortis had set in, which indicated that Mr. Nevis had hanged himself prior to the time Respondent reported to work. Respondent did not perform a visual check of the inmates in the unit at 6:43 a.m. as he recorded in the Unit Logbook. Had Respondent actually performed the visual checks at that time, he would have discovered Mr. Nevis' body. The first line of the second entry made by Respondent in the Unit Logbook entry at 6:43 a.m. indicating that he had made a visual check of the "unit/inmates" and that all appeared "QRU" was false. Respondent had not performed a visual inspection to determine the status of the unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months and that he thereafter be placed on probation for a period of two years. As a special condition of probation, Respondent should be required to complete an ethics course approved by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has held Certificate Number 502-3664 issued by Petitioner, and has been employed as a correctional officer at the Dade County jail since October, 1982. In May, 1984, Respondent was working as a correctional officer assigned to the Dade County Stockade on the 3:00 p.m. to midnight shift. He had been assigned to the Stockade approximately one year earlier. Rene Cruz was an inmate at the Dade County Stockade in May, 1984, who had attained trustee status. A trustee is given more freedom in the Stockade than other inmates and can remain outside of his cell for periods each day after other inmates are locked up. Dion Chian was also an inmate at the Stockade in May, 1984. In late April or early May, 1984, inmate Chian was placed in "the hole" at the Stockade for possessing marijuana after his return from a work detail. At the same time Respondent started locking up Cruz when he came on duty at 3:00 p.m. because he had smelled marijuana in "the hole" in an area close to Cruz. Although he never saw Cruz smoke marijuana, he considered him a trouble maker. By locking up Cruz every day, Respondent took an important privilege away from trustee Cruz. Cruz testified that in late May, 1984, Respondent had oral sexual contact with an inmate in "the hole" at the Dade County Stockade. Chian confirms the incident, claiming he was the inmate involved. However, the testimony of these inmates is not credible. Cruz stated that the inmate involved in the incident was a black male with light skin, but Chian is a dark skinned black male. Cruz was unclear about the details of the alleged incident, including where and when it took place, the identity of the inmate involved, and the relative positions of Respondent and the other inmate during the incident. He testified that he only observed the incident in progress for "a second." Chian's testimony conflicted with that of Cruz concerning the location of the incident and also his role in the incident. Cruz testified that the inmate was having oral sex with Respondent, while Chian testified that Respondent was the active participant in the incident with him. Chian alleged that a second incident took place, but this testimony is not supported and is not credible. Anthony Campos, a Police Benevolent Association (PBA) representative, testified that Respondent admitted the incident to him. However, Lou Altobelli, an elected director of the PBA, and Nelson H. Perry, President of the Dade County PBA, testified that Campos has a reputation as a "story-teller" and for not telling the truth. Perry discussed the incident involving Respondent with Campos on three occasions and Campos never told him that Respondent had admitted the allegations. In Perry's conversations with Respondent, the charges were vehemently denied by Respondent. Based upon all of the testimony presented, a finding cannot be made that Respondent admitted his participation in this incident. On or about June 10, 1984, Respondent was confronted with the allegation by his superiors at the Dade County Stockade. He testified that he was initially very concerned about the negative impact and publicity that would occur if he contested the charges, especially because his father is a law enforcement officer in Dade County, and so he submitted his resignation. However the next day he withdrew his resignation, was suspended, and the matter was then turned over to the State Attorney's Office for investigation. No criminal charges were ever filed, and that investigation has been closed. Following a local hearing, Respondent has been reinstated as a correctional officer at the Dade County jail and has been assigned to the information booth.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 17th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 85-1142) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted and included in introductory material. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 5-7 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 8-12 Rejected based on Findings of Fact 4 and 5, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 15-22 Rejected based on Findings of Fact 4 and 5, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 23,24 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 25 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 26-29 Rejected based on Finding of Fact 6 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1.2 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 4, 5 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 3-5 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 6 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 4 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Douglas C. Hartman, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Daryl G. McLaughlin Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the correctional officer certificate of Melvin J. Simmons should be revoked for lack of good moral character due to having sexual relations with an inmate in the Palm Beach County Jail where Mr. Simmons was employed?
Findings Of Fact Melvin J. Simmons was issued a certificate as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 30, 1984, certificate 44-84-502-02. In February 1985, Mr. Simmons and Lidia Gonzalez were employed as correctional officers at the Palm Beach County Jail. Both had attended the Police Academy in the same class. In February 1985, Pearline Bartee was incarcerated at the jail. As a trustee, Ms. Bartee was able to move about the jail. Ms. Gonzalez worked in the watchtower at the jail. Simmons approached her to have her arrange a meeting between himself and Bartee in the enclosed stairwell between the first and second floors of the jail. Women inmates were housed on those two floors. Simmons told Gonzalez that he wanted the meeting to engage in sex with Bartee. Simmons asked Gonzalez to warn him through the intercom system in the watchtower and stairwell if a supervisor approached the stairwell while Simmons and Bartee were together there. Simmons had two meetings with Bartee in the stairwell and thanked Gonzalez for looking out for him. On both occasions Simmons had sex with Bartee in the stairwell. Sergeant Michael Tucker of the staff investigation unit of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department investigated a rumor that correctional officers had engaged in sex with female inmates. During the course of the investigation, Tucker received information that Simmons may have been involved in misconduct. On April 23, 1987, Sergeant Tucker and a polygraphist, Aaron Saylor, interviewed Simmons about the allegations of sexual misconduct. Simmons initially denied the allegations and grew increasingly nervous during the interview. Due to Simmons' demeanor, Tucker told Simmons that he doubted Simmons' truthfulness and was asked to submit to a polygraph examination. Respondent then admitted that he had engaged in intercourse with Bartee in the stairwell on three occasions in February 1985. Sexual contact between correctional officers and inmates is inconsistent with the employment practice of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That certificate 44-84-502-02 issued to Melvin J. Simmons be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 21st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2937 All proposed findings of fact have been adopted except Finding of Fact 9 relating to rumors that inmate Bartee may have become pregnant. In light of the evidence that Ms. Bartee, herself, told correctional officer Gonzalez that Bartee was not pregnant, there is no record basis for such a finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Melvin J. Simmons 1412 West 7th Street Riviera Beach Florida 33404 Marzell Mitchell, Jr., Esquire Harvey Building, Suite 413 224 Datura Street West Palm Beach Florida 33401 Rod Caswel1, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact CASE HISTORY This case arises based upon an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against one Alfonso Bach setting forth allegations as established in the Issues portion of this Recommended Order. The date of the Administrative Complaint is May 6, 1981. Following a request for formal hearing the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 13, 1981. After assignment, a formal hearing was held on July 21, 1981, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(l), Florida Statutes. In the course of the hearing no testimony was presented by either party; the Petitioner offered a series of exhibits, 1-3. These exhibits are discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. MATERIAL FACTS After reviewing the Petitioner's proffered Exhibits 1-3 and upon consideration of argument in support of and in opposition to the admission of these exhibits, the exhibits have not been admitted. Consequently, there being no other basis for determining facts, no material facts are found.
Recommendation It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the prosecution by Administrative Complaint referred to herein, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, PD 0005572, be dismissed. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 28th day of September 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Alachua County Detention and Corrections Department (Exhibit 9) consists of 50 full-time employees (Exhibit 17). Authorized personnel spaces include the Correctional Director, the Correctional Assistant Administrator, the Correctional Inmate Consultant, the Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant, a Correctional Officer V, a Correctional Officer IV, six Correctional Officers III, five Correctional Officers II, and thirty Correctional Officers I (see Exhibit 10). Also authorized are a Secretary III who is the secretary to the Director, three Food Service Employees and one Accounting Clerk I. Alachua County has a total of about 786 County employees, including constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Tax Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections and the County Commission Staff. This figure includes 91 professional employees. If employees of constitutional officers were excluded from a single bargaining unit for the County, such a unit would consist of 360 employees. The County is under a unified pay plan for all county employees. It retains the services of a pay plan consultant who does an annual review of pay, job descriptions and duties of all county employees. It also has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern salaries, work hours, vacation, sick leave, leaves of absence and the like (Exhibits 10,11). The County Administrator is the chief executive officer for the county and, with respect to the Department of Corrections, supervises basic policies and budgetary functions. The department budget is proposed by the Director of the Department, submitted to the County Administrator for review and corrections, and then approved by the County Commission. The Director implements the plan and can change line items only by permission of the County Administrator and the County Commission. The only history of prior collective bargaining in the county was recognition of the Sheriff's office on or about May, 1972. The Police Benevolent Association is the bargaining agent for that unit. The position of the County at this time is that it is a co-employer with the Sheriff as to that unit. The current contract with sworn personnel includes about 133 employees. The Police Benevolent Association declined to be included in a county-wide unit of county employees. Alachua County is the subject of special state legislation which permits it to manage funds allocated to constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court, Tax Assessor, and Tax Collector for the county (Exhibits 12-15). The functions of the Corrections Department include the detention of persons awaiting criminal trial, care and housing of prisoners serving sentences, work release and school release programs, classification and diagnostic services, recommendations to the court for referrals to these programs and recommendations for diversionary programs. Unlike most counties, the Corrections Department does not operate within or under the office of the Sheriff. The Department is conducting a modern concept in rehabilitation of offenders through a variety of programs which are designed to re-orient prisoners for more useful lives. To this end, the department secures grants which enable it to fulfill some of these functions. In hiring personnel, it looks for those who have a high school degree and preferably some college work in the social services area. When forming the department in 1973, most of the employees hired came "off the street", although some came from the office of the Sheriff and from other county departments. Correctional Officers carry identification as Special Deputies which empowers them to detain people for corrections only. This status is unique to them. They wear a modified uniform consisting of a blazer, slacks and tie. Correctional Officers carry arms in transporting prisoners to and from court and in supervising their recreational activities outside the correctional facility. The department has tried to get away from a chain of command concept to lessen a law enforcement image. Although it has done away with military titles there are still some personnel who use military titles such as Sergeant and Lieutenant in addressing personnel. Employees of the department have their most continuing contacts with the Sheriff's office because they are in the same building and have similar interests in connection with county prisoners. The Correctional Director is responsible to the County Administrator for all activities, operations and functions of the department. His duties include fiscal, plant, manpower planning, management, organization, staff selection and supervision, policy formulation, the establishment of programs for the department, and for the operation and maintenance of the detention center. He alone has the authority to hire, discharge, promote or discipline personnel of the department. He formulates the budget which is submitted through the County Administrator of the County Commission. He is assisted in the hiring process by a panel which includes himself or the Assistant Administrator, another department employee and either the inmate consultant or a faculty member from the University of Florida. The Assistant Administrator assists the Director by making recommendations as to departmental policy, securing grant applications,. and formulating departmental programs. He also makes recommendations to the Director as to personnel matters and assists in fiscal matters. The Director holds periodic staff meetings at which the Correctional Officers IV and V usually attend. The Correctional Officer V is the Commander of the Detention Center and is thus responsible for direct supervision of all personnel and operations at that facility. He carries out operational policy established by the Director in the form of orders and memoranda. He makes budget recommendations to the Director as to necessary equipment but is not directly involved in the budget process. He makes recommendations to the Director concerning all personnel actions affecting the Detention Center, to include leaves, promotions or terminations. He exercises direct supervision over the Correctional Officer IV and the shift commanders (Correctional Officer III). The Correctional Officer IV is under the general supervision of the Detention Center commander and is responsible for supervision of all logistical and support services of the center. He also assists the Commander in maintaining communication and coordination among shift commanders. He serves as the Acting Commander in the absence of the Correctional Officer V. The Correctional Officers III have direct supervision of Correctional Officers I and II in the operation of the center and related programs. They serve as shift commanders for three shifts of 8 1/2 hours a day each. Correctional Officers I and II perform essentially the same duties which involve primary responsibility to maintain physical custody and control of prisoners within the detention facility and while transporting inmates. Their secondary responsibility is support of program goals through communication and observation of behavior and inmate attitude which is reported to the shift commander or treatment staff. The Correctional Officer II also assists in supervision and on the job training for new employees. In the absence of the shift commander, the Correctional Officer II becomes responsible for the functions of the Detention Center and supervision of correctional officers on duty on that shift. The Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant is preferably an ex-offender who initiates programs and activities for the prisoner population, including various sports and games, competitions among the inmates, and assists the Correctional Inmate Consultant. The Correctional Inmate Consultant is a member of the personal staff of the Director. It is his responsibility to spend great portions of his workday in direct contact with the inmate population and to advise the Director on matters pertaining to the well-being, health, sanitation and programming activities of the inmates. He assists individual inmates with their problems and makes recommendations to the director concerning work release, furloughs, extra "gain time" and, in certain instances, disciplinary matters. He attends all staff meetings except those involving departmental personnel and advises the Director on matters relating to policies of the department with reference to inmate treatment and control. He is an ex-inmate and, in general, advises on the institutional climate. The Food Service personnel are cooks who prepare food for the institution in the cafeteria. They report to the Correctional Officer IV. The Secretary III is the secretary to the director of the department who handles confidential matters for him, including meeting agendas, taking and transcribing dictation, minutes of meetings, conferences and other activities.
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner originally sought a determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This case began with the filing of a Petition For Administrative Determination on December 23, 1986. On March 26, 1987, this Hearing Officer issued a Final Order of Dismissal which granted the Department's motion to dismiss. The Final Order Of Dismissal concluded that the Petitioner had failed to allege standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006, because his allegations were insufficient to show that his substantial interests were affected by those subsections of the rule. The Final Order Of Dismissal went on to conclude that the Petitioner had sufficiently alleged standing to challenge Subsection (1) of the challenged rule, but also concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently allege facts sufficient to show the invalidity of the rule. In this regard the Final Order Of Dismissal specifically stated at paragraph 12: In order to sufficiently allege the invalidity of an existing rule, a rule challenge petition must assert, at a minimum, that the challenged rule is in some specified way a departure from statutory authority granted to the rule enacting agency by the Legislature. Where, as here, the rule is nothing more than a repetition of the statutory provision, the rule may be unnecessary, but it is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it does not in any way depart from the statutory mandate. Because of the identical provisions of the subject rule language and the applicable statute, the Petitioner has not, and cannot, allege any facts sufficient to show that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because he has not, and cannot, allege any differences between the statutory mandate and the rule mandate. The Petitioner sought appellate review of the Final Order Of Dismissal. In Diaz v. Florida Department of Corrections, 519 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appeal dismissed, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988), the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion which primarily addressed the constitutionality of the statutory authority for the challenged rule. In that opinion the court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2) Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional. The case is remanded to the DOAH hearing officer for further proceedings to determine the validity of Rule 33-6.006(1) in light of this opinion. On March 21, 1988, the appellate court issued its mandate and the case was once again before the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The appellate court decision left undisturbed the conclusion that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006. Accordingly, the issue on remand is limited to a determination of the validity of Subsection (1) of Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code. As discussed in the conclusions of law, that determination involves a consideration of statutory amendments which took effect after the appellate court decision and were, therefore, not considered by the appellate court. At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and the Petitioner also offered several exhibits. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner was granted leave to file two late exhibits consisting of selected portions of the Department's Policy and Procedure Directives and selected portions of the Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures. The Respondent was granted leave to file post-hearing objections to any late-filed exhibits. The late-filed exhibits were submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent promptly filed objections to same. Upon consideration, the objections to the exhibits are overruled and the late-filed exhibits are received as part of the record in this case. Following the hearing, a transcript of tide proceedings at hearing was also filed. Thereafter, both parties filed timely proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed final orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings stipulated by the parties Florida Administrative Code Chapters 1S, 22I, 28, and 33, as found in the Florida Administrative Code Annotated, through the April 1988 supplement, are true and correct copies of those rule chapters. The Petitioner's current address is: Enrique J. Diaz Inmate Number 065599 Florida State Prison Post Office Box 747 Starke, Florida 32091 The Respondent's name and address is: Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Department rule on which an administrative determination is sought is Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, which states: No inmate of any institution, facility, or program shall have access to any information contained in the files of the Department. The statutory provisions on which the subject Department rule is based are Sections 944.09 and 945.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's interests are substantially affected by Rule 33- 6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, in that: He is a convicted felon, lawfully confined in the custody of the Department. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents he was once given by the Department, but which he no longer has in his possession, including, but not limited to: Institutional grievances filed by him. Grievance appeals filed by him. Disciplinary Reports issued against him. Disciplinary Report Worksheets issued against him. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents which are public records and which can be obtained by anyone from sources outside the Department, including, but not limited to: His Judgment and Sentence forms. His Uniform Commitment to Custody form. He wishes to obtain from the Department documents which are public records and which are normally provided to any member of the public requesting same, including, but not limited to: The Department's annual report. Ordinary records kept in the normal course of business, such as might be kept by any state agency. He had been refused any and all documents from the Department because of Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE AT HEARING Inmates are given copies of any disciplinary reports they receive at the time they receive the disciplinary report, plus the results of any subsequent disciplinary hearing. These copies are carbon copies rather than photocopies. Inmates are given answers to inmate requests, institutional grievances, and grievance appeals they file. These answers are given to the inmate with a copy of his original filing. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of any disciplinary report, disciplinary worksheet, inmate request, institutional grievance, or grievance appeal he had previously been given does not create a security problem. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of his Judgment and Sentence forms, which are public documents contained in the files and records of the appropriate Clerks of Court, does not create a security problcm. Copies of the above documents are routinely made for attorneys and the news media. The actual cost of providing these copies is charged. The Department would not provide copies of the above documents if it were known the copies would be given to an inmate. The Department's Administrative Gain Time Manual is made available to the news media, the public, and attorneys. The Department refuses to make this manual available to inmates. The Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures (IOPs) are public records, but the Department refuses to make copies of them for individual inmates because of Rule 33- 6.006(1), even though some of the IOPs are in the prison law library. The Department's Policy and Procedure Directives are freely available to the public, but the Department refuse to make them available to inmates. Florida State Prison, where the Petitioner is incarcerated, has approximately 1164 inmates. In accordance with state statute, the institution keeps a file on each inmate. Each file consists of from two to eighteen legal size folders of documents. The files include such material as investigation reports, disciplinary reports, special review information, presentence reports, psychological and medical reports, detainers, gain time, and other information. There are three people in the Florida State Prison records department responsible for inmate files. It takes the FSP record department three or four hours daily to file newly received documents. The FSP records department also has other duties, such as posting gain time, cell changes, and disciplinary reports. The FSP records department has received few, if any, requests for information from the public or the news media. Most of their requests come from attorneys. The attorneys' requests for information place additional burdens on the small FSP records department staff. By way of example, it took approximately two hours to "screen" the Petitioner's file at FSP and his file is smaller than that of 75 or 80 per cent of the inmates. Florida State Prison has only three photocopy machines for the entire institution. The machines are used extensively and are subject to frequent malfunctions. The Admissions and Release office maintains the official file on each inmate at the central office. Currently, there are 33,000 inmates in custody. The primary reason that the Admissions and Release office does not want inmates to have hands-on access to their central office files is to maintain the integrity of the record. The Department has had to use the files in court to defend and substantiate the calculations for release dates. The Admissions and Release office has denied all inmate requests for copies of information from its files. The Admissions and Release office is currently shorthanded. Whenever there is a new court decision affecting inmate rights or sentences, the office is flooded with correspondence and requests from inmates. The office has already received some grievances and requests from inmates concerning the appellate court decision in this case. The office expects a flood of requests if inmates are given access to Department records. During the past four years the Admissions and Release office has had very few requests for access to its files from the news media or the general public. The Department's central files contain access codes for the Department's computers. If inmates could obtain the access codes, it would compromise the integrity of the Department's computer records. Before release of any information from the Department's central office files, the information is screened for confidential information. Even documents which appear to be facially innocent have to be read to determine whether they contain information about informants or victims. The Department is concerned that if inmates are allowed broad access to Department files, such access will create security problems. But the Department is even more concerned about the sheer volume of requests that would result from allowing broad access and the impact the expected volume of requests would have on Department staff and copying equipment. The Department is also generally of the view that it is virtually impossible to write a rule which would describe which documents should be available for inmate access and which should not. Rather, the Department is of the view that decisions regarding release of documents to inmates must be made on a case by case basis after review of each document in each file.
The Issue Whether the memorandum petitioners challenge amounts to a rule improperly promulgated? Whether the rules petitioners challenge are arbitrary and capricious or are otherwise beyond the authority delegated to respondent? STANDING STIPULATED At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. O'Donnell stated a motion ore tenus to strike paragraph five of the petition, in which the memorandum was challenged, on grounds that a challenge to the memorandum was premature, quoting the memorandum: "[T]he limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984." After argument, the hearing officer was persuaded that the challenge was not premature on its fact, inasmuch as inmates with "items no listed . . . or an excessive amount of property" must decide whether to dispose of property before April 1, 1984, or suffer its confiscation; since nothing further was required for the memorandum to be efficacious; and since failure to enforce a rule does not alter its character as a rule. After the motion to strike was denied, Mr. O'Donnell stipulated, on the record, that standing was not in issue. He nevertheless argues in respondent's "proposed findings of fact-- conclusions of law--final order," as follows: Knowing the issue of standing as to the memo to have been put at issue by Respondent, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to place into the record some indication of impact. Having failed to do so, Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the memo. State v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). 9. The issue of the adverse impact of the memo is crucial to a proper determination of whether the memo is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. * * * The memo, rather than adversely affect inmates, may not have any substantial impact on Petitioners. Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. Again, Petitioner entirely failed to introduce evidence on this point. This argument is precluded by Mr. O'Donnell's stipulation on the record at the hearing. Having stipulated that no proof was necessary to show the impact of the memorandum, respondent cannot now be heard to complain of the absence of proof on that point. Mr. O'Donnell also stipulated that the memorandum was not promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact It is clear from its title that the memorandum is meant to apply only to Union Correctional Institution. The body of the memorandum, dated February 1, 1984, provides, in full: The attached 1/ is a list of the type and quantity of inmate property authorized at UCI. Inmates may also possess items sold by the Canteen, items received through an approved Package Permit, items authorized to be in cells as part of the Hobbycraft Program and items issued by the state. Property Quantity limits are necessary to prevent fires and control insect infestation. In addition, they provide a standard for both inmates and staff to follow in determining if an inmate's amount of property is excessive. Since many inmates have accumulated property for a long time, the limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984. Inmates who have items not listed in this me[m]orandum or an excessive amount of property should begin making arrangements to send items out of the institution. Inmates who need to dispose of property should send a request to Sgt. Singletary, Property Officer. Items may be mailed somewhere or placed on the Main Gate for pick-up by a visitor. Your cooperation in reducing the amount of excess property yourselves, prior to April 1, 1984, will be greatly appreciated. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. It is signed by D. E. Jackson, Colonel, Correctional Officer Chief II, and P. V. Gunning, Assistant Superintendent of Operations. Dennis Dean Cooper is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. In the month or two preceding the hearing, prison personnel confiscated wax, a wooden mallet, a hammer, a knife and rubber glue, all belonging to Cooper, who had acquired them, after gaining approval to do so, in connection with the Hobbycraft program. Guards searched from cell to cell and filled a 50 gallon barrel with items they took from Dean's cell alone. Kenneth Hayes' right eye was injured in a boxing accident. A governmental agency set up to assist the blind issued Hayes, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, a green tape cassette recorder which prison personnel seized on January 19, 1984; they also took the stool he had made with approved Hobbycraft materials. That was the same day, or perhaps the day before, William Joseph Goens, an inmate house in the Main Housing Unit at Union Correctional Institution, lost his inlaid wooden chessboard in a "shakedown." Another inmate, Clayton, had given him the chessboard. Goens later saw the chessboard in a trash barrel in the back of a dump truck. Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution and housed at 3T8, John Richard Clayton also lost property in the January 1984 shakedown, including Hobbycraft items, personal letters and letters from his attorney bearing on the proceedings eventuating in his incarceration. He is skilled at leather working and sometimes has temporary possession of other inmates' leather goods for purposes of effecting their repair. An electric fan which an inmate transferred to another institution had given Clayton before leaving was also confiscated. When prison personnel proposed to confiscate John McConnell's legal papers, if he did not dispose of them himself, he called several lawyers. Eventually he was issued a metal locker to which he transferred his legal papers from the cardboard box that had held them. No papers were ever confiscated. Petitioner Carl Cribbs, also confined at Union Correctional Institution lost two, bound folders containing legal documents, including 13 affidavits, as well as an electric fan, when these items were confiscated by prison guards on January 19, or 20, 1984. Radios and electric fans are registered as a means of identifying them. They are treated as contraband except when they are in the possession of the inmate to whom they are registered. If an inmate lends property to another inmate, it may become contraband subject to confiscation, regardless of the type of property involved. These practices protect inmates from theft, which is rampant at Union Correctional Institution. Guards and inmates alike are subject to "shakedowns" without notice as a means of controlling the flow of contraband. Under the right circumstances, virtually any property in an inmate's possession might be seized. At one time inmates were permitted to have matches and buy honey from the canteen in glass jars. After they began hurling empty honey jars at one another, the canteen switched to plastic containers for honey, and glass jars of all kinds were treated as contraband and confiscated. Inmates are still allowed cigarette lighters, but matches have been contraband ever since the authorities learned that new equipment in the shop made it possible for the inmates to manufacture zip guns. On the other hand, inmates are allowed Hobbycraft items, under ordinary circumstances, including X-acto knives. These knives have blades less than an inch long, but could be lethal if used as a weapon. If an inmate if found guilty of a rule infraction and subjected to administrative confinement, his property is confiscated. If an inmate attempted suicide, even his clothes might be removed. Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland, confined at Union Correctional Institution at the time of the hearing, had legal papers confiscated while he was at Baker Correctional Institution, but eventually recovered them pursuant to court order. Douglas L. Adams and Joe Lewis Holland v. Department of Corrections ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, et al., No. AV-483 (Fla. 1st DCA; December 13, 1983). At Baker Correctional Institution everything that did not fit into a bed locker was treated as contraband. David Watson, Assistant Superintendent at Florida State Prison, has been ordered by the fire marshall to cause large cardboard boxes of papers to be removed from the prison. Some items seized as contraband are burnt. Others are given to the Boys' Ranch or the inmates' welfare fund. All Florida prisons have storage rooms and inmates are ordinarily issued lockers, but there are physical limits on how much personal property can be stored at Union Correctional Institution or any other prison. Too many things in prisoners' cells make for problems with sanitation and insect infestation.
