Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission was the state agency responsible for the training and certification or law enforcement and corrections officers in Florida. Respondent was certified as a Corrections Officer under certificate No. 48891 on August 8, 1991. On June 29, 1994, Respondent was employed as a Corrections Officer I at the Hillsborough Corrections Institute in Tampa and had been so employed for approximately three and a half years. On that day, officer Ricardo Sementilli, a policeman with the Tampa Police Department's narcotics bureau, with approximately six and a half years experience in law enforcement, was targeting a house in Carver City, a Tampa housing area, for suspected unlawful narcotics activity. In the course of his investigation, Officer Sementilli was using the services of a confidential informant, Penny DuFour. Ms. DuFour, herself a former drug user, had been working as an informant for the police in general and for Officer Sementilli in particular for almost two years. On this evening, he proposed to have Ms. DuFour make a controlled purchase of illegal drugs at this particular residence. As preparation for the controlled buy, Ms. DuFour was searched by Officer Keene, also of the Tampa Police Department, to insure that she did not have any narcotics or other contraband in her possession. None was found during this search which is a normal procedure of the Tampa Police Department as a part of a controlled purchase by a confidential informant. Officer Keene was assigned to the Police Department's Tactical Division in narcotics enforcement and had worked in that division for approximately five years. She was working with Sementilli on this operation because he was well known and she was unknown in the geographic area in which the buy was to be made. Pursuant to the officers' plan, Officer Sementilli drove Ms. DuFour and Officer Keene to the intersection of Laurel and Manhattan Streets in Carver City. At this point, Keene, who had binoculars with her, hid out of sight behind a wall at Jefferson High School in a position where she could see Ms. DuFour. When Keene was in place, DuFour was sent out from the police vehicle to approach the residence in question. Keene was able to keep DuFour in sight the entire time using the binoculars. As DuFour approached the residence in question, a red compact car, occupied by Mr. Sampson and the Respondent, drove up. Both DuFour and Keene indicated Mr. Sampson was in the passenger seat and Respondent, who was dressed in a law enforcement uniform, was driving. DuFour went up to the vehicle and leaned in the passenger window. She asked Mr. Sampson if he was "straight." By this she meant to ask if he had any narcotics on his possession. In response, Sampson said he did, reached under the passenger seat of the car, and pulled out a plastic baggie in which were several pieces of what appeared to be cocaine. He placed the baggie in his lap and from it extracted a small piece of the substance which he gave to DuFour in exchange for $20.00 in U.S. currency which DuFour had been given by Officer Sementilli. All during this time, the baggie was in plain view on Sampson's lap and Respondent could see what was happening. She was either looking at Sampson or looking out the window, and Ms. DuFour was of the opinion that Respondent was fully aware of what was going on though she did not say anything. It is so found. After she received the substance from Sampson and paid him for it, DuFour left the vehicle and returned to where Officer Keene was located without either stopping or speaking with anyone on the way. When she got to Keene, she handed over the substance she had received from Sampson and was searched to insure she had not hidden any additional contraband on her person. She had not. Sementilli performed a field test of the substance at the scene. The test indicated the substance DuFour had received from Sampson in the presence of the Respondent was cocaine. This tentative identification was subsequently confirmed by a laboratory analysis conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. No issue was raised as to chain of custody of the sample in question or as to its identification as cocaine. At the time the sale took place from Sampson to DuFour, the officers obtained the license tag number on the vehicle being driven by Respondent and from which Sampson made the sale. A subsequent check with the Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that the vehicle was owned by Louis Sales, Respondent's father. Approximately one month after the sale described above, the car was discovered at the home belonging to Mr. Sampson's mother. As the officers were attempting to impound the vehicle, Respondent approached them. Keene at that time identified Respondent as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the sale in issue here and placed her under arrest. However, criminal charges were not preferred against her. At hearing, Respondent indicated that on the day of the alleged sale, she had been driven to work in her father's car by her boyfriend, Mr. Sampson, who was without his own vehicle at the time. While at work, she was interrogated by facility investigators relative to an allegation that she was introducing contraband into the corrections facility. Because this upset her, she asked for and was give permission to leave work early, approximately 5:30 PM. She then contacted Mr. Sampson who picked her up in her vehicle at approximately 7:00 PM that evening. When Sampson and Respondent left the corrections facility, they drove to Carver City because Sampson said he had to run an errand in the area. At that time Carver City, located some 45 minutes from Plant City, where Respondent lived, was known as an area of high drug activity. It was not uncommon for many drug dealers to be operating on the streets of the community. Respondent knew that Mr. Sampson was a drug dealer. He would sometime sell drugs openly in front of her. She had been present on several other occasions when DuFour had purchased cocaine from Mr. Sampson. At the time she met Mr. Sampson, in December, 1993, notwithstanding she denied it, Respondent knew he had just recently been released from prison because he told her so. He had been convicted of escape and grand theft. Nonetheless, they developed a relationship during the course of which she admittedly began to suspect he was dealing drugs. She did not ask him if this was so, however, even though she knew that her knowing association with a drug dealer could place her certification in jeopardy. When she became convinced that Sampson was dealing drugs, Respondent still did not terminate the relationship, however, claiming she was afraid to do so. When she was arrested as a result of the instant sale, however, she finally broke off the relationship. As a result of the controlled buy in issue, Mr. Sampson was convicted of sale of cocaine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Sydell T. Sales, be found guilty of demonstrating less than good moral character, and that her certification as a corrections officer be placed on probation for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North MacDill Avenue Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 A. Leon Lowry, II Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Charles Moore was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 2, 1968, and was issued Certificate Number 10-2-68-G. Prologue Christina Marie Hechler and his girlfriend Teresa Hammic worked at "the first rest area before you get to Lake Buena Vista exit" (T.21) in July of 1984. One day that July, they were talking before work, when Mr. Moore, whom neither knew at the time, approached and "made some . . . different little suggestions . . . He wanted . . . [the young women] to have sex together while he watched." (T.22) Their conversation over, Mr. Moore left with Ms. Hechler's telephone number. In addition to performing her duties at the rest area, Ms. Hechler worked as a confidential informant under the direction of Russell Bernard Permaul, at the time assigned to the Narcotics Section of the Orange County Sheriff Department's Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation. Ms. Hechler, who spent time with Mr. Permaul socially as well as professionally, told him on May 3, 1985 that "she knew of someone that did the same work [he] did that was involved in cocaine." (T.45) On May 6, 1985, she told Mr. Permaul the man she had referred to three days earlier was Mr. Moore, and that, at unspecified times and places, she "was present when he snorted cocaine, and that he had offered cocaine to her and a friend for unknown sexual acts." (T.45) On May 16, 1985, Ms. Hechler gave Mr. Permaul a foil packet containing cocaine. At hearing, she testified that Mr. Moore brought the packet to her at her grandmother's house but neither fingerprints nor anything else, aside from her testimony, linked Moore to the cocaine. Ms. Hechler's grandmother was unable to pick respondent out of a "photo lineup." (T.36). Mr. Permaul did not feel Ms. Hechler's information "was reliable enough . . . to come out and arrest." (T.60) The First Investigation But Mr. Permaul apprised his superiors of the situation, and they authorized him to begin an investigation. To this end, he enlisted a female police officer from Kissimmee and arranged for Ms. Hechler to introduce her to Mr. Moore outside "the Triple X Movie Theater on Orange Blossom Trail," (T.47) on Friday, May 17, 1985. Ms. Hechler worked at the theater at the time. A listening device in Ms. Hechler's pocketbook malfunctioned, so no recording was made of what turned out, in any event, to be a very short meeting. The next day, Ms. Hechler later told Mr. Permaul, she sought out Mr. Moore on her own, who told her that the woman she had been with the day before was a deputy sheriff. He also reportedly told her "that if anybody from . . . Department Internal Affairs . . . contacted her . . . to tell them that she has no idea what's going on (T.49) At this point the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation "didn't feel there would be any merit to proceeding with a criminal investigation any further." (T.88) Along with Mr. Permaul, Tony Randall Scoggins, a sergeant with the Orlando Police Department who was supervisor in charge of internal affairs investigators, had watched while Ms. Bechler introduced the undercover female law enforcement officer to respondent Moore at the Fairvilla Triple X Theater. Moore was employed by the Orlando Police Department at the time, and the Orlando Police Department wanted to determine whether he should continue as a police sergeant. After the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation decided not "to do anything more with it right now," (T.88) Sgt. Scoggins turned the matter over to Lt. William Kennedy of the Orlando Police Department to pursue a criminal investigation "before he got into the thing administratively." (T.92). The Second Investigation On September 3, 1985, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs assigned Agent Gary Rowell and Carey Farney, then a narcotics agent attached to the Orlando Police Department's special investigations division, to conduct a criminal investigation of respondent Moore. Sgt. Scoggins introduced them to Ms. Hechler, whom they instructed to telephone Sgt. Moore, even though she had not been in touch with him for four or five months. She made several telephone calls from various pay telephones, which the investigators tape recorded. Sgt. Moore "was suspicious that [Ms. Hechler] was possibly working [as a confidential informant.] He mentioned the MBI. It was like he wanted to talk to her, but he wasn't quite sure [whether] she was safe or not. (T.67) There were no specific offers to sell or provide cocaine during these conversations. Meanwhile Agent Farney approached Carol Lee Jones, who worked as a horse arrest officer for the Department of Corrections, to participate in an undercover "operation directed against Sgt. Moore." Allegedly, Sgt. Moore was interested in having a menage a trois arrangement with Chistina Hechler . . . . [Ms. Jones] was to be the third person. And in exchange for the sex act there would be an exchange of cocaine. (T.8) The "initial game plan was to have Carol Jones go undercover with Christine Hechler, and . . . see if Sgt. Moore would deliver cocaine ultimately to Carol Jones." (T.65) Ms. Hechler agreed to introduce Ms. Jones to Sgt. Moore, in furtherance of this plan. Sgt. Moore told Ms. Hechler he "would be working at the Howard Johnson's" (T.70) on Saturday night, September 14, 1985. September 14-15, 1985 Agent Farney rented a customized van in which he, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs followed Ms. Hechler and Ms. Jones to Howard Johnson's on September 14, 1985, or maybe a little past midnight on the morning of the 15th. Before setting out, they had furnished the women transmitters "the size of a cigarette pack, maybe a little smaller" (T.73) or bugs which they concealed on their persons or in their purses. The women parked their car and went into the motel's lounge in search of respondent Moore. The policemen parked behind the motel, out of view, with receivers and tape recorders ready to monitor any transmissions from the "bugs." Eventually Mr. Moore, dressed in full Orlando Police Department regalia, left the lounge to follow the women into the parking lot, where he and Ms. Hechler joked about her being an undercover agent. Agent Farney, listening from the van "believe[d] Christina and Charlie Moore were doing most of the talking. When they get outside Charlie Moore asks her, "[D]o you have a bug in your purse?" [Agent Farney] couldn't' understand what her answer was And then he asked her, "[D]o you want to buy some cocaine?" And she says, [Y]eah" or "[Y]es," or something to that [e]ffect. He asked her again, "Do you want to buy some coke?" . . . [H]e said "coke" both times [Farney believed, on reflection) . . The second time he said, "Do you want to buy some coke?," and she says, "Yeah, I sure do." And then they're giggling as they're walking along talking. Basically it's Christina and Charlie Moore doing the talking now. And for whatever reason Christina didn't pursue the coke issue, and then they make arrangements to get together later on . . . another date. And . . . [the women] get in their car and leave. (T.77) At least in the opinion of Agent Farney, this conversation did not give probable cause to believe that Sgt. Moore had been guilty of a crime, including, "[s]ome sort of solicitation to commit a crime" (T.85-86), so as to justify either his arrest or the filing of charges with the state's attorney's office. (T.84) Epilogue On September 24, 1985, Ms. Hechler accused respondent Moore of perpetrating a sexual battery on her person, and the Chief of Police immediately suspended Sgt. Moore. Administrative proceedings eventuated in disciplinary action on account of the alleged battery, but concluded with a finding that no drug offense was established. No criminal prosecution was instituted on either charge.
The Issue Whether the Department of Financial Services should issue Petitioner, Alejandro Javier Friguls (“Petitioner”), a license as a resident personal lines insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact On September 11, 2015, the Department received an application from Petitioner seeking a license as a resident personal lines insurance agent. A personal lines insurance agent is an insurance agent who transacts business related to property insurance and casualty insurance sold to individuals and families for noncommercial purposes. See § 626.015(5) and (15), Fla. Stat. The Department has jurisdiction over licensing procedures for personal lines agents in the State of Florida. See § 626.016(1), Fla. Stat. On November 23, 2015, pursuant to its statutory responsibility, the Department issued a Notice of Denial notifying Petitioner of its intent to deny his application.2/ The Department denied Petitioner’s application based on his criminal history record. On January 19, 2012, in Seminole County Circuit Court, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to one charge of possession of Oxycodone, a third-degree felony under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The court accepted Petitioner’s plea but withheld adjudication of guilt for the crime. (The Notice of Denial states that Petitioner was “adjudicated guilty” of the felony. The Department conceded at the final hearing that this allegation in the Notice of Denial was incorrect and that Petitioner’s adjudication of guilt was withheld.) The court placed Petitioner on probation for one year. The court notified Petitioner that if he violated the terms of his probation, the court could revoke his probation and adjudicate him guilty. Petitioner served his probation without incident. He completed his probation on January 18, 2013. After receiving Petitioner’s application on November 12, 2015, the Department completed a form entitled Effect of Criminal History Record Worksheet (“Worksheet”). On this Worksheet, the Department classified Petitioner’s crime as a third-degree felony. Thereafter, citing to section 626.207, Florida Statutes, the Department determined that Petitioner’s felony subjected him to a 7-year disqualifying period from applying for a license. The Worksheet also recorded that the Department calculated that Petitioner would not become eligible to apply for an insurance license until January 18, 2021.3/ Based on the competent substantial evidence received in the record, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department should not have denied his application as a personal lines insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order rescinding the Notice of Denial issued to Petitioner on November 23, 2015, and grant Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident personal lines insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 1st day of June, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, respondent has held a registered Class "B" Security Agency License, No. B86-00092, a Class "DS" Security Officer School/or Training Facility License, No. DS90-00069, a Class "D" Security Officer License, No. D85-2333, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI88-00012, and a Class "MB" Manager Security Agency License, No. MB86-00105. At all pertinent times, respondent provided security services to various non-governmental clients in Bay County, Florida, and also furnished security services to its only governmental client, the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, more than 100 miles from respondent's offices. From January 21, 1991, to June 30, 1991, respondent employed J. C. Barnwell, Terrell Barnwell, Larry Burks, Michael Dicks, Robert Pompey and Darrell L. Smith, none of whom held security officer licenses. They all worked as security officers at the Federal Correctional Institution in Leon County, and did no other work for respondent.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Isler & Banks, P.A. P.O. Drawer 430 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Jim Smith, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-2 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be disciplined for allegedly operating various security services without a license as charged in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 25, 1989, petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division), received by mail from an anonymous source a copy of a business card reflecting the name of respondent, Robert D. Wingard, and another individual, and indicating that respondent provided the following services: "Executive & V. I. P. Protection, Undercover Investigation, Alarm Technology, Bonding & Courier Work." The card further represented that Wingard held "Lic. No. 34882-809099." The card listed Wingard's address as 4419 Melbourne Street, Punta Gorda, Florida. After receiving the card, a Division investigator, Daniel J. Cabrera, interviewed respondent in Punta Gorda on May 11, 1989. During the course of the interview, respondent acknowledged to Cabrera that he operated a private investigative service, performed the services of a private investigator, operated a security guard agency and performed the services of a security guard, all under the name of Security Enforcement Specialists. However, Wingard maintained he had all necessary licenses from the state. According to Charlotte County records, Wingard applied for and was issued an occupational license by that county on June 18, 1988. The administrative complaint has used that date as the date on which Wingard commenced providing the above services. An examination of Division records indicated that Wingard did not hold those licenses needed to operate the services described in finding of fact 2. Therefore, all services being provided by Wingard were performed without the proper licensure from the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the administrative complaint issued against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Clifford Rocha was, at all times material to this proceeding, employed as a security officer by Dade Federal Security. He was hired on October 16, 1989, and worked for Dade Federal Security on a part-time basis until sometime after the incident from which this proceeding arises. As a general rule, all employees of Dade Federal Security, as part of the company's policy and procedures, are required to sign a copy of the written rules applicable to the security officer job in the presence of their supervisor to acknowledge they have read them. As part of that procedure each employee receives a copy of the rules. Usually this happens at time of hire. The written work rules include the following statement: "Any employee who abandons his or her assignment location without advising his or her supervisor and the company will be determined to be terminated on the spot." Aleli Puig, the owner and manager of Dade Federal Security, did not remember ever discussing the work rules with Mr. Rocha and could not remember ever telling Mr. Rocha that he was never to leave his post. As a general rule, security officers employed by Dade Federal Security are instructed that when they see a crime committed in their presence to first call 911 and then to call Dade Federal Security and ask for a supervisor. The owner and manager of Dade Federal Security in her thirteen years in the security industry has never told her security officer employees that they were to leave their posts to chase down a suspected criminal. The written rules described above were first placed in effect at some time after the Respondent was hired. There is no persuasive evidence in this case that the Respondent was ever provided a copy of the written rules. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent was otherwise advised about any of the work rules mentioned above. 6/ On December 16, 1992, the Respondent was assigned to work as a security officer at a shopping center located near the intersection of Bird Road (which is also Southwest 42nd Street) and 128th Avenue. While on duty in that capacity in the early morning hours, the Respondent observed two suspects who appeared to have stolen a six-pack of beer from a convenience store located in the shopping mall where the Respondent was working. The two suspects left the shopping mall in an automobile. The Respondent followed the two suspects in his own automobile, on which he had placed a flashing yellow light. Approximately 20 blocks from the shopping mall there was an automobile accident involving the Respondent's automobile and the automobile containing the two suspects. 7/ Shortly thereafter, the police were called and the two suspects were arrested. The office of Dade Federal Security was also called and Gangerico Cruz, who was the Respondent's supervisor, went to the scene of the accident. At the scene of the accident Supervisor Cruz spoke with the Respondent about what had happened. Among other things, the Respondent told his supervisor that he was pleased that he had been able to detain the suspects. Later when the Respondent spoke to the owner of Dade Federal Security he told the owner she should be proud of him for detaining the suspects. The Respondent suffered a broken leg in the automobile accident and was unable to work for an unspecified period of time. After his leg healed the Respondent continued to work for Dade Federal Security for an unspecified period of time. His employment was eventually terminated as a result of a later incident during which he was accused of sleeping while on duty.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 14th day of March 1995.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification in the face of an arrest and conviction of Petitioner for a felony offense, which allegedly would cause the Petitioner to be rejected as an applicant for certification. The denial of licensure is purportedly in keeping with the dictates of Subsection 943.13(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner had made application to be certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, in keeping with the terms and conditions of Subsection 943.13, Florida Statutes. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has completed all administrative requirements for such licensure; however, he has been denied licensure based upon his arrest, a finding of guilt and judgment and sentence related to a charge of conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle in Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce from New York, New York, to Miami, Florida, and from Miami, Florida, to Havana, Cuba, knowing that the motor vehicle had been stolen. This offense related to Title XVIII, Sections 2312 and 2371, U.S.C., in an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 8519-M-CR. For these matters the Petitioner was imprisoned for a period of two (2) years on two (2) counts of the indictment, Counts 3 and 6. The sentence in those counts was to run concurrently. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored in the State of Florida, together with his rights to own, possess and use a firearm. Federal firearms disability arising from the felony conviction have also been set aside. See Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, respectively, admitted into evidence.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Rodriguez was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on May 18, 2004, and was issued Correctional Certification No. 240475. On or about February 10, 2009, officers from the Kissimmee Police Department and St. Cloud Police Department participated in an undercover police operation geared to targeting individuals that intend to commit crimes involving narcotics or prostitution. They created a false advertisement for prostitution services on the website, Craigslist. The advertisement consisted of photographs and an undercover phone number to contact for sexual services. The advertisement did not indicate that it was an undercover operation. On or about that same date, Mr. Rodriguez placed a phone call using the same number on the advertisement. At the time Mr. Rodriguez placed the call, he was unaware that the advertisement was part of an undercover operation. During the phone conversation, Mr. Rodriguez communicated with Detective Takeya Close (Detective Close), an undercover agent who posed as a prostitute. Detective Close did not identify herself to Mr. Rodriguez as an undercover agent. Mr. Rodriguez communicated to Detective Close that he desired sexual services from her in exchange for money. Detective Close informed Mr. Rodriguez that the price for sexual services ranged from 50 to 80 dollars. A “quickie” service consisted of 15 minutes or less of sexual activity and cost 50 dollars. A “full service” consisted of a half-hour of sexual activity and cost 80 dollars. Mr. Rodriguez told Detective Close that he wanted a “full service” and was willing to pay her either price for her sexual services. Detective Close then provided Mr. Rodriguez a meeting location, a residential house at 4903 Newton Court in St. Cloud, Florida. Law enforcement used the residential house as part of the undercover operation. They agreed to meet at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez arrived at the agreed time at the St. Cloud residential house that was part of the undercover operation. Detective Close, posed as a prostitute, greeted Mr. Rodriguez at the front door. Once Mr. Rodriguez entered the house, law enforcement officers arrested and detained him. During a search of Mr. Rodriguez incident to his arrest, law enforcement officers discovered his cellular phone, which contained the undercover phone number in the call history log, and 50 dollars cash. Detective Close’s credible testimony was that, on or about February 10, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez communicated with her, agreed to pay her money for her sexual services, and arrived at the St. Cloud undercover residential house attempting to engage in prostitution. Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony that the purpose of his communication with Detective Close and his arrival at the St. Cloud residential house was to receive a massage was not credible. His cellular phone showed that he had called the undercover number and that he went to the St. Cloud undercover house at the agreed time. On or about April 12, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez was driving a white SUV. Devon Littlejohn (Ms. Littlejohn), a prostitute, was standing on the corner of Wakulla and Orange Blossom Trail, an area known for prostitution activity. When Mr. Rodriguez drove past where Ms. Littlejohn was standing, Ms. Littlejohn waived at him. Mr. Rodriguez made a U-turn and drove up to Ms. Littlejohn. Ms. Littlejohn approached Mr. Rodriguez while he was in his vehicle and engaged in conversation with him. Ms. Littlejohn solicited sexual services to Mr. Rodriguez by asking him if he wanted a “date.” Mr. Rodriguez answered affirmatively and then asked Ms. Littlejohn if she had a room. Ms. Littlejohn answered yes. Mr. Rodriguez then asked Ms. Littlejohn about the price for her sexual services, and she informed him that “full service” costs 80 dollars. Mr. Rodriguez agreed to pay Ms. Littlejohn 80 dollars in exchange for her sexual services. Ms. Littlejohn entered the passenger side of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez then drove off with Ms. Littlejohn inside his vehicle. On April 12, 2009, Law Enforcement Sheriff Deputy Scott Bearns (Deputy Bearns) of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office was patrolling the Orange Blossom Trail area when he drove pass Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle. Deputy Bearns conducted a traffic stop on Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle for having an illegal window tint. Mr. Rodriguez pulled his vehicle over at a parking lot across the street from the place where Ms. Littlejohn was originally standing. Deputy Bearns recognized Ms. Littlejohn as a prostitute in the local area and observed her and Mr. Rodriguez in the vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez informed Deputy Bearns that he worked as a correctional officer. Deputy Bearns then escorted Ms. Littlejohn outside of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle and Mirandized her. Ms. Littlejohn revealed to Deputy Bearns that Mr. Rodriguez had agreed for her to perform sexual services in exchange for 80 dollars. Ms. Littlejohn provided Deputy Bearns a written statement to that effect. Deputy Bearns arrested Mr. Rodriguez for assignation to commit prostitution. Ms. Littlejohn was not arrested. Incident to the arrest, another deputy conducted a search of Mr. Rodriguez’s vehicle and discovered a total of 102 dollars cash. Ms. Littlejohn’s credible testimony was that Mr. Rodriguez communicated with her, agreed to pay her money for her sexual services, and allowed her to enter his vehicle in an attempt to engage in prostitution. Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony that Ms. Littlejohn jumped in his vehicle without his consent and was hanging out of the vehicle with the door open was not credible.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Jose R. Rodriguez violated sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7) and rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 21st day of June, 2011.
