The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Hazel Marie Bowling, is qualified to hold a Certificate as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, stipulation of facts, and the entire record compiled herein, hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Hazel Marie Bowling, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 3, 1979, and was issued Certificate Number 02-23702 as a law enforcement officer. On approximately December 17, 1981, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the offense of filing a false report to law enforcement authorities, a misdemeanor involving perjury or false statement. (Stipulation of the parties) As mitigating factors, Respondent, through representative Henry C. Jones, pointed out that motions for a new trial and for an arrest of the judgment, referred to hereinabove, had been made but were "erroneously" decided, at least in the minds of Respondent and representative Jones. Respondent also points to the fact that she has been hired by the Hendry County Sheriffs" Department as a dispatcher and that to obtain that employment, she was subjected to a background check and was cleared by that agency for the dispatcher's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 7th of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of January, 1985.
Recommendation By reasons of the foregoing Facts and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Respondent's license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission as a correctional officer on March 21, 1985, and issued Certificate No. 04-85-599-01. At the time of the events which form the basis for the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Marion Correctional Institution, a correctional facility of the State Department of Corrections. Marion County Sheriff's Deputies, David F. Faircloth, Jr. and Art King, are veteran law enforcement officers who have received training in the detection and recognition of controlled substances, to include marijuana. Both officers have made numerous arrests for the possession of a controlled substance which they suspected was marijuana and which, upon being tested, proved to be marijuana On June 9, 1990, while on regular patrol in Marion County, Florida, Deputy David F. Faircloth, Jr. was directed to investigate an anonymous report of a male and female who had been observed fighting in a white Camaro automobile parked on U.S. Highway 27. While in that vicinity in response to that request, Officer Faircloth responded to a complaint of a disturbance at 1261 N.W. 56th Court, Ocala, Florida. When Deputy Faircloth arrived on the scene, he noticed a white, two-door Camaro. Deputy Faircloth determined upon investigation that the Respondent and Linda Altman, who lived at the address, had engaged in an altercation involving their respective vehicles which were both damaged and parked in the front yard. Both the Respondent and Ms. Altman had been drinking and both were upset. Deputy King was dispatched as a backup and arrived at the Altman residence. Upon his arrival, Deputy King was briefed by Deputy Faircloth, who advised him that both the Respondent and Ms. Altman had been drinking, both were angry with one another, both had engaged in some altercation involving their vehicles which had caused damage to both vehicles, and both were correctional officers. Pursuant to their standard operating procedure, the deputies separated and interviewed separately the Respondent and Ms. Altman. Deputy King talked to the Respondent and Deputy Faircloth talked to Ms. Altman. Deputies Faircloth and King determined that the white Camaro parked at the location belonged to the Respondent. Deputy King stated that he intended to permit the Respondent to leave the scene; however, he was concerned that the Respondent, being a corrections officer, might have a weapon in his vehicle and return to cause more trouble. This testimony is logically inconsistent because if the Respondent had a gun and was released, he could retrieve the gun and return. However, it was on this basis Deputy King asked the Respondent if he could search his vehicle. The Respondent consented to the search of his vehicle by Deputy King. Officer King began his search of the vehicle in the front driver's seat. As Deputy King was leaning into the vehicle, conducting his search, the Respondent leaned over his back into the rear of the automobile and removed a shaving kit from the back seat. The Respondent's unanticipated action startled deputy King, who turned and inquired of the Respondent what he was doing. The Respondent, through words and gestures, indicated to Deputy King that he did not want him to search the shaving kit. The Respondent told Deputy King that there were no guns in the kit; but when Deputy King persisted in being permitted to search the kit, the Respondent indicated that he would open the kit and show Deputy King its contents. When the Respondent unzipped and opened the kit, Deputy King observed at the top of the kit a plastic bag containing dried vegetable matter which Deputy King thought to be marijuana. Deputy King seized as contraband the contents of the plastic bag, and upon administration of a field test for controlled substances, he determined that the substance was marijuana. Deputy King arrested the Respondent, and conducted a search of the Respondent's vehicle where he found a portion of a partially-smoked marijuana cigarette and a device which appeared to be some type of smoking device. The bag of marijuana which Deputy King seized from the Respondent's shaving kit was sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime laboratory for analysis. The crime laboratory concluded that the plastic bag contained 4.7 grams of cannabis or marijuana. One cannot determine from the report whether the burnt cigarette was tested and determined to be marijuana. Although Deputy King filed charges against the Respondent, the charges were later dismissed by the prosecutor for reasons unknown to Deputies King and Faircloth.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Michael R. Harrison, committed the violations alleged in an administrative complaint dated June 28, 1996, and if so, what discipline or penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Michael R. Harrison is certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement and correctional officer, having been issued corrections certificate number 26101 on December 18, 1985, and law enforcement certificate number 26100 on July 2, 1987. At the time of the incident at issue, Officer Harrison was employed as a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. On February 14, 1995, around 4:25 p.m., Harrison was parked in the woods on Willow Street in Zellwood, Florida, doing some paperwork. He observed two young black males engaged in what he thought was drug dealing. A yellow car pulled up to them, with a white male driving. The tag on the yellow vehicle was in Harrison’s plain view. Familiar with the area, and knowing that the white male did not live there, Harrison decided to run a check on the tag. The tag itself was slightly lopsided and not well-attached, and Harrison’s instincts made him suspicious of the situation. As soon as Harrison gave the tag number to the teletype operator, the yellow car began to pull away from the scene. It was apparent that the driver had noticed Harrison’s vehicle. Harrison began pursuit of the yellow car as he waited for the teletype response on the tag. By the time the tag response came over the radio, Harrison was totally absorbed with his pursuit. There was rush- hour traffic and the yellow car was on U.S. Highway 441, a busy thoroughfare. When Harrison made the stop and the driver produced his license, the computer check revealed that the license was restricted “for business purposes only.” After a brief inquiry that satisfied him that the suspect was not on his way home from work, Harrison arrested the driver on what he considered was a driver’s license violation. As he waited for a back-up deputy and a tow truck for the yellow car, Harrison searched the car and found a small quantity of marijuana. Harrison then charged the driver with the drug offense. In the meantime, and while Harrison was still pursuing the yellow car, the report on the suspected tag came back “negative” (a valid tag). The dispatcher reported that the tag “...should appear on a ’70 Ford, two-door, yellow in color.” This was the vehicle Harrison was pursuing. Moreover, the person to whom the vehicle was registered was the driver arrested by Harrison. Later, the same day as the arrest, Harrison filled out the arrest report, a form titled “Charging Affidavit.” Under the narrative statement of facts to establish probable cause, Harrison included this statement: “I ran the tag and it came back no record found.” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) Corporal McCarthy McCullough was reviewing reports at the end of her shift at Orange County Sheriff’s Office around 1 a.m., February 15, 1995. She read Deputy Harrison’s charging affidavit and questioned the sufficiency of his probable cause for the stop. She called him in to discuss the report. He tried to explain to her what “no record found” meant. Harrison admits that when Corporal McCullough talked to him, he was aware he had made an error on the form. He wanted to talk to his supervisor because Corporal McCullough was new on the job, but the sergeant was at school. Harrison felt he needed to amend the charging affidavit, but never did as “things just started happening too fast, and I didn’t have the opportunity.” (transcript, p.31, ll. 5-7) After Harrison left the shift, Corporal McCullough, still suspicious about the probable cause, ran the tag through the teletype herself and got the response described in paragraph 7, above. The next day she talked to her sergeant, and they got a tape of the message to Harrison from the communications center. The tape reflects the exchange between Harrison and the dispatcher when he gave the tag number to the dispatcher and asked for a “28-29,” which is code for a vehicle registration and check to see if the car was stolen or wanted for any reason. The answer, as acknowledged by Harrison at hearing, was the “negative” with information describing the car and driver stopped by Harrison. The statement by Harrison on his charging affidavit is patently false. Although no one formally administered an oath to him before he signed the form, his signature appears under this printed statement: “I swear and affirm the above statements are correct and true.” His signature is next to that of another law enforcement officer or correctional officer with this statement: “Sworn to and subscribed before me, the undersigned authority”. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) These statements and the title of the form itself were ample notice to Harrison that he was swearing to the truth of his handwritten report of the arrest and its probable cause.i Aside from his specious argument that he was not really “swearing” to the document, Harrison’s defense is that he never intended to make a false statement. Instead, he never listened to the dispatcher’s response, as he was intent on pursuing his suspect and was concerned for his safety in the pursuit. His instincts were that the driver had intended to deal drugs back on Willow Street, an area where he did not belong, and that because the tag was awry, there was some problem with the vehicle. When he was questioned by Corporal McCullough a simple admission that he had not listened properly to the dispatcher would have credited his excuse of a “mistake.” Instead, he stuck to his story and tried to explain what “no report” meant. His account of the incident is disingenuous and supports a finding that the report was intentionally false, perhaps from an overabundance of zeal to justify a stop that yielded two offenses. After the incident was referred to Internal Affairs, Harrison was dismissed from his position. He had been a deputy for six years without any suspensions or discipline for duty work. He and his partner once shared a commendation of “deputy of the month.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding that Michael R. Harrison knowingly made a false report, imposing one year’s suspension of his certificate and two years’ probation, with the further requirement that he complete appropriate retraining specified by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ Hearings Hearings MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy J. Bardill, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 H.R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 11239 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1239 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a resident life insurance agent, including variable annuity and health insurance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in the state pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004). On May 2, 2005, Respondent received Petitioner's application to be licensed as a resident life, variable annuity, and health agent (insurance agent). On September 22, 2005, Respondent issued a Notice of Denial to Petitioner. Respondent based the denial on several grounds that may be divided into three parts. The first part is based on Petitioner's prior criminal history. In relevant part, the Notice of Denial denies the application because Petitioner pled guilty to two crimes allegedly punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. The Notice of Denial further states that the crimes were crimes of moral turpitude and that Subsection 626.611(14), Florida Statutes (2004), makes denial of the application compulsory. Even if the crime were not one of moral turpitude, the Notice of Denial states that the guilty pleas provide a discretionary ground to deny the application pursuant to Subsection 626.621(8), Florida Statutes (2004). The second part of the grounds for denial is also compulsory. The second part of the grounds may be fairly summarized as alleging a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance within the meaning of Subsections 626.611(7), 626.785(1), and 626.831(1), Florida Statutes (2004). The second part of the grounds for denial is a tautology of the criminal offenses. The Notice of Denial states that Petitioner lacks one or more qualifications for the license because of the criminal convictions. The third part of the grounds for denial relates to waiting periods. The Notice of Denial states that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(9)(a) requires Petitioner to wait a longer period of time before applying for a license as an insurance agent due to the multiple criminal offenses. The remaining findings of fact address the factual sufficiency of the second part of the grounds for denial. The conclusions of law, in relevant part, address the legal sufficiency of the first and third parts of the grounds for denial. The criminal record of Petitioner is undisputed. On October 17, 1986, the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, adjudged Petitioner guilty of the felony of possession of cannabis, withheld adjudication of guilt pertaining to a felony charge of possession of cocaine, and sentenced Petitioner to two years' probation. Petitioner satisfactorily completed his probation. On January 13, 2005, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to a felony charge of willful and malicious damage to real or personal property. The court withheld adjudication of guilt, imposed fines and costs of $450, required restitution in an amount of at least $1,000 and not more than $2,500, and placed Petitioner on probation for two years. Petitioner's son had run away from home. Petitioner had information that his son was residing in the residence for which Petitioner was charged with property damage. Petitioner was attempting to locate his son and bring him home. Petitioner did not satisfactorily complete probation. Petitioner changed residences without prior notice to his probation officer. Petitioner testified that he undertook every reasonable effort to notify his probation officer before moving. The trier of fact finds the testimony concerning Petitioner's notice to the probation officer to be credible and persuasive. The probation officer had constructive knowledge of the new residence. The move caused no harm to the state or the public.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order determining that Petitioner's license application has been granted by operation of law. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 8th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether, pursuant to sections 475.17(1)(a) and 475.181(2), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has the required honesty and good character to be entitled to take the examination for licensure as a licensed real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact On January 7, 2013, Petitioner filed the Application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. In response to a question asking if she had ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of no contest or guilty to, a crime, Petitioner disclosed one crime: exploitation of an elderly person. Although providing a detailed explanation of what she viewed as extenuating circumstances for the exploitation offense, Petitioner failed to disclose any other offenses. In addition to this offense, which is a 1999 conviction for the exploitation of an elderly person for more than $20,000, Petitioner was convicted at the same time of two other offenses that are undisclosed in the Application: organized fraud for $20,000 to $50,000 and grand theft. These three offenses are second-degree felonies bearing the same disposition date of May 12, 1999, based on Petitioner's plea of no contest to the three charges. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation, 300 hours' community service, restitution of $1598, and court costs. These offenses arose out of Petitioner's persuading an aged neighbor to cosign a note, so that Petitioner could purchase a car. The neighbor also lent Petitioner $1000, so that Petitioner could obtain insurance for the vehicle. Fifteen years later, Petitioner continues to assert her innocence in this matter, although she does not deny the transactions described above in connection with these three convictions. Petitioner claims that she was poorly represented by a public defender and that the entire matter was the result of an overprotective out-of-state son who visited his aged mother and happened to notice a credit card charge for the insurance premium. At the very least, Petitioner lacks insight into the serious nature of her bad conduct in this matter. In addition to failing to disclose two of three of the offenses described above, the Application also fails to disclose two earlier criminal matters. In 1989, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, both misdemeanors. The record is undeveloped as to these charges, although it appears that Petitioner pled no contest to at least one of them, and the court withheld adjudication on both of them. Also, in 1990, Petitioner pleaded no contest to a third- degree felony of grand theft, for which the court withheld adjudication and sentenced Petitioner to restitution of $450 and other special conditions. Petitioner claims to have forgotten about these older criminal matters. Without regard to the legitimacy of this explanation as to the 1989 misdemeanor offense, it is unlikely that Petitioner had forgotten about the 1990 felony offense because, in this case, she had stolen a gold bracelet owned by a woman with whom her husband was romantically linked. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has failed to prove, not only that she has the requisite honesty and good character for licensure, but also that sufficient time and subsequent good conduct provide the necessary assurance that her licensure would not present an undue risk to the public and investors.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying the Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Leslie Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Evelyn Lozado Apartment 305 3001 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be suspended and dismissed from her employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged by Florida law with the operation, control, and supervision of all School District employees. Respondent has been employed by the Petitioner since 1993 as a full-time school bus driver. Accordingly Respondent is classified as non-instructional school personnel. On February 1, 1991, Respondent completed an employment application with the Petitioner. Such application included a security check form. This form required Respondent to answer three specific questions regarding her criminal history. Such questions were: Have you ever received a penalty from a judge or a law enforcement agency or do you currently have charges pending as the result of an arrest? Has a penalty or conviction ever been withheld, delayed or turned over to another agency or has probation been required as the result of your being arrested? Have you ever applied for and received an expungment of an arrest? If your answer to question 1, 2, or 3 is yes, complete the following. If more space is needed, attach an additional sheet. As to each question posed, Respondent answered by checking the box "No." For the area to be completed if any answer were "Yes," Respondent wrote "N/A." Subsequent to the submittal of the application noted above, Respondent was employed part-time by the School Board. On January 4, 1993, Respondent completed a second application for employment with the School Board and again submitted a Security Check form. This second form contained the following questions: Have you ever been convicted or received a penalty (imprisonment, probation, fines, court costs, etc.) from a judge or a law enforcement agency for a crime other than minor traffic infractions? Has a penalty or conviction ever been withheld (adjudication withheld) or delayed or has probation been required as the result of your being arrested? Do you currently have charges pending as the result of an arrest? Have you ever received an expungement (charges erased) of an arrest or a pardon of a conviction? (Any sealed record should be included.) If you responded YES to any of the above questions, give details below. If more space is needed, attach an additional sheet. On the Security Check form executed in 1993, Respondent checked "Yes" and "No" for the first question; "No" to questions 2, 3, and 4; and inserted "N/A" to the portion to be completed if any answer were "YES." Shortly after completing the application, Respondent began her full-time work with the School District. On or about September 30, 1997, Chief Kelly's office received a request for investigation regarding the alleged current arrest of a school employee, Respondent. While conducting this investigation, it was verified that Respondent had a current arrest but that she also had had a previous arrest for aggravated battery. According to court records, the accuracy of which Respondent does not dispute, Respondent was arrested in 1988 for aggravated battery, pled guilty to the lesser offense of battery, and was adjudicated guilty. As a result of the plea, Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months, was directed to pay probation costs, and was ordered to make restitution for the victim's medical bills. The investigation was completed and the foregoing findings were presented to the Respondent who was offered, by way of a disciplinary conference, an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Respondent was asked to share any mitigating or exculpatory evidence with regard to the alleged falsification of the Security Check forms. Such disciplinary conference occurred on November 10, 1997. Respondent did not deny the prior history nor offer any information to enlighten school officials as to why she had failed to disclose the criminal matter from 1988. At hearing Respondent maintained that a Public Defender had advised her at the time of the plea that the incident would not affect her employment. Respondent admitted that she recalled being on probation for the incident from 1988. Respondent did not request assistance nor seek advice regarding the forms for employment. Respondent completed high school and did not, prior to completing the Security Check form and submitting it to the Petitioner for employment purposes, indicate that she did not understand the questions posed or the information sought from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension and dismissal of the Respondent from her employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 28th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Joan Kowal Superintendent School District of Palm Beach County 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Virginia Tanner-Otts, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Lee Rosenberg, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Mamie Washington Kendall, Esquire 141 South Main Street, Suite 211 Belle Glade, Florida 33430
Findings Of Fact On November 22, 1989, T. L. James & Company, Inc. was convicted of conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition. This is a public entity crime. T. L. James executed a Public Entity Crimes Affidavit on July 24, 1994. On the affidavit T. L. James disclosed the conviction. Pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, the Department of management Services (DMS) shall investigate public entity crimes to determine if the convicted company should be placed on the convicted vendors' list. After receiving the affidavit from T. L. James, DMS conducted an investigation and discovered mitigating factors as defined and listed in Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. These factors are: payment of fines and damages totalling $600,000, cooperation with the officials criminally investigating and prosecuting the case, cooperation with DMS' investigation, instituting safeguards in the bid estimation process to prevent further irregularities, and providing full and accurate notice. All other facts stipulated to by the parties pursuant to the Joint Stipulation previously filed in this case are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s felony convictions directly relate to the practice of public accounting and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed certified public accountant, having been issued license number AC-0001638 by the Florida Board of Accountancy. Respondent was convicted on felony charges of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements in United States v. Tunick in the Southern District of New York on December 26, 2000. Respondent was thereafter sentenced to a year and a day in prison to be followed by three years of supervised probation. He is currently free on bail pending an appeal. Respondent’s convictions violate the level of professional conduct expected of a person licensed to practice public accounting in Florida and are within the scope of crimes that directly relate to the ability to practice public accounting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; permanently revoking the Respondent’s license to practice public accounting in Florida; and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter B. Lebowitz, Esquire 12555 Biscayne Boulevard, No. 924 Miami, Florida 33308 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Martha Willis, Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
