Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, 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 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards 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 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
The Issue Has Mr. Aylwin demonstrated that he possesses the requirements of Section 493.306, Florida Statutes (1981) to be licensed as a security guard by the Department?
Findings Of Fact On March , 1981, Mr. Aylwin applied for a Class "D" and "G" Security Guard License from the Department. Question 13 of the application form submitted by Petitioner asked if he had ever been arrested. Mr. Aylwin checked the box marked "No." On May 5, 1981, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Aylwin which stated in part: Your application for the above referenced license has been denied pursuant to the Florida Statutes as cited, and facts stated, in the attachment (applicable portions of the statutes are indicated with an "X"). The items checked included: X Chapter 493.306(2)(b)(1) "There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the applicant and the business for which the license is sought." X Chapter 493.306(6)(b) "Demonstrate fitness to carry a firearm based upon a complete background investigation by the department of the individual's police record and general character. X Chapter 493.309(1)(c) "Such other investigation of individual as the department may deem necessary." Chapter 493.319: X (1)(a) "Fraud or w11lful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license;" X (1)(c) "Having been found gu11ty of the commission of a crime which directly relates to the business for which the license is held, regardless of adjudication;" X (1)(j) "Commission of assault, battery, or kidnapping or use of force or violence on any person except in self-defense or in the defense of a client;" x (1)(p) "Violating any provision of this chapter." On September 4, 1971, Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was sentenced to a fine of $202 or thirty-three days in ja11. In 1976 Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The charged was later reduced to reckless driving and he was convicted. Petitioner admits to a drinking problem and stated at the final hearing that his use of alcohol was part of the cause for his conviction for assault and battery and for the current loss of his driver's license for traffic violations. No credible evidence other than the lapse of time was presented to establish the rehab11itation of Petitioner from the effects of his assault and battery conviction. Petitioner's explanation of why he did not truthfully answer question #13 on his application is not accepted as credible. It is found that he w11lfully gave a false answer to question #13.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order denying the application of Rudolph T. Aylwin for both a Class "G" and a Class "D" Security Guard License. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August,1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph T. Aylwin 321 C SE 11 Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in proceeding, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on March 11, 1983 and issued Certificate Number 502-3844. The Respondent was a correctional officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office beginning in January 1983. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent resided with Ms. Burton (who has subsequently married Respondent and is now known as Elaine Burton Edwards) and two of her children. One of her children, Karl McInis ("Karl") was twenty three months old at the time and he was in the process of being toilet trained. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent discovered that Karl had "messed" on the floor and/or in his pants. The Respondent felt that the child's actions were deliberate and that the child needed to be disciplined. Therefore, Respondent struck the child fives times with a leather belt. There is a dispute as to the type and size of the belt used. While Petitioner contends that Respondent used his heavy Sheriff's Deputy belt, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent used a typical men's trousers belt. As a result of the discipline described in paragraph 5 above, Karl suffered bruises on his buttocks and legs. Subsequent to the incident, the child was removed from the home by HRS. He currently resides out of state with his grandparents. Criminal charges were brought against Respondent after HRS reported the incident to the police. However, after Respondent successfully completed a counseling program as part of a pre-trial intervention program, the charges were nolle prossed on November 10, 1988. As a result of his arrest, Respondent was suspended from his job at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department pending the outcome of the criminal case. Respondent has not been reinstated. After completing the counseling program, Respondent altered his methods of disciplining his children. On most occasions, Respondent has refrained from using corporal punishment and instead attempts to apply the assertive discipline procedures he learned in the counseling program. However, Respondent admits that on a few occasions when he felt the children did not respond to the assertive discipline techniques, he has resorted to corporal punishment. On March 2, 1989, Respondent disciplined one of his children, Julius Edwards, by striking him five times on the palms of the hands with a belt. At the time of the incident described in paragraph 10, Julius was five years old. Julius and at least one other sibling from Respondent's previous marriage were living with Respondent and Ms. Burton. Respondent punished Julius because he felt the child was deliberately engaging in a pattern of obstinate conduct in an attempt to be returned to the custody of his natural mother. That conduct included eating excessive amounts of food after being instructed not to. During the punishment, Julius struggled and at least one of the blows landed on his arms. As a result of the punishment, Julius had bruises on his arms which measured approximately four inches long and one inch wide. As a result of the corporal punishment administered by Respondent to Julius, Respondent was arrested and ultimately adjudicated guilty of a misdemeanor for violating Section 827.04, Florida Statutes (child abuse) on March 29, 1989 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, in case no. 89-5869MMA08. As a result of this conviction, Respondent was required to undergo additional counseling. While the bruises suffered by the children in the two incidents described above are significant cause for concern, neither of the children required medical attention. At the time of both of the incidents in question, none of the other children evidenced bruises, they all appeared well-fed and there was no other evidence of any neglect. Indeed, the evidence reflects that the Respondent is a dedicated and caring father. He is extremely concerned about the many negative influences that affect children in our society. As a result, he believes it is important for him to discipline the children in an attempt to ensure that they choose the right path in life. Respondent contends that he was raised with a similar type of discipline and finds it difficult to understand the commotion caused by his attempts to discipline his children in the manner in which he was raised. While his motives are good, he has used very poor judgment in certain situations and imposed excessive punishment given the age of the children and the nature of their behavior. Respondent has aspired to be a law enforcement officer since his high school days. He has spent hundreds of hours as a volunteer for various school projects and programs involving children. He has strived hard to be a good role model and an active member of his community. However, he needs to temper his concerns and enthusiasm with more sensitivity to the rights of others. There is no indication of any deficiencies or problems in Respondent's job performance. Indeed, the only evidence introduced regarding his performance as a law enforcement officer indicated that he was dedicated, concerned and responsible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and seriousness of the offense as it relates to the public trust placed in a correctional officer who guards those incarcerated by society, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order placing Respondent Glenn S. Edwards' correctional officer certification on probation for a period of two years and requiring him to complete an appropriate counseling program for parents while refraining from any further violations of Section 943.13(1)-(10). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 10th day of April 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this administrative complaint, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Putnam Correctional Institution (Putnam). He was certified August 14, 1987 by certificate #14-87-502-13. He is 26 years old. In September 1987, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Special Agent Jimmie Collins was tipped off by Michael Adkins, an inmate at Putnam, that a correctional officer was interested in selling one or two kilograms of cocaine. Collins approached Adkins' wife, Phyllis, who agreed to assist Collins in a criminal investigation. At Collins' instructions, Phyllis Adkins set up a meeting with Respondent, telling him she was a mediator or broker for a cocaine buyer named "Joe." Mrs. Adkins wore an electronic transmitter to a meeting with Respondent on September 2, 1987 and her conversation was monitored and taped by Agent Collins. At the September 2, 1987 meeting, which took place in the open at a restaurant parking lot, Respondent and Mrs. Adkins discussed in the most general terms an exchange of "coke" for money. "Samples" were discussed. No one made any commitment to anyone with regard to samples or a sale. The Respondent's behavior was described by both participants as "freaked" or frightened. Later, Mrs. Adkins set up another "meet" with Respondent for September 23, 1987 under similar conditions. At that time, she had with her another FDLE agent, Joe Nickmier, who posed as the imaginary narcotics dealer named "Joe." Respondent brought with him another person, Chris Sanford. Agent Collins was surprised that Respondent brought someone with him because such an exposure of a proposed drug deal to several persons was contrary to his experience with the secretive, suspicious, and paranoid behavior of "real dopers." As a result, Agent Collins felt that Respondent was involved in something he did not know about. Collins was further surprised when the masquerading "Joe" concurred with Respondent's ordering Chris Sanford to stand back away from their conversation, since Sanford's involvement had the potential of raising the circumstances to a standard sufficient for FDLE to make a charge against both Respondent and Sanford for "conspiracy" in use, trafficking, or selling of a controlled substance. During the conversation involving Respondent, Phyllis Adkins, and "Joe," on September 23, 1987, which conversation was also monitored and taped by Agent Collins, there is a suggestion that Respondent would exchange 17-18 or 22 ounces of some kind of drug for money, but the language employed by all concerned is vague and unconnected. Respondent avoided any commitment to the others, including giving them his phone number. At the conclusion of this meeting, Agent Collins had formed the opinion that Respondent did not fit the category of "a real doper" but was just an individual out to make some money. Collins felt that he had a reasonable expectation that the Respondent would sell cocaine if he could get it but that Respondent could not get cocaine from the Putnam County Sheriff's Office or the Daytona Police Department. It is not clear where Agent Collins got the idea that Respondent had offered to obtain any controlled substance from the respective evidence rooms. This concept was not volunteered or admitted by Respondent in either of the taped meetings with Phyllis Adkins and/or "Joe." Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" suggested to Respondent several times on September 23, 1987 that Respondent's contact must be in law enforcement in Daytona, but no "evidence room" was ever mentioned. It may be that Agent Collins relied on out-of-court (hearsay) information from Michael or Phyllis Adkins, but his reliance on such hearsay statements, in the absence of some direct supporting evidence, does not support a finding that Respondent ever made an offer to get contraband drugs from any sealed evidence room. In a subsequent March 1988 interview, Respondent admitted to prison inspectors and to Agent Collins that he had, indeed, made both parking lot contacts with Phyllis Adkins and that he knew he was operating outside the scope of his employment duties as a correctional officer when he did so, but that he was just conducting his own investigation into drug dealing to "set up" inmate Michael Adkins for FDLE. Respondent's stated purposes were to further his career and to impress his father, a Florida highway patrolman. Respondent admitted that he knew the prison investigator at Putnam but that he did not report his activities to the prison investigator. Special Agent Jimmie Collins consulted FDLE legal personnel and determined not to prosecute the Respondent criminally because there was insufficient evidence of either conspiracy or of a substantive statutory violation. Two times in January 1986, far previous to any of the events giving rise to the current charges, Respondent had approached another FDLE Special Agent, Paul Fuentez, giving him the names and addresses of several known drug dealers and requesting the opportunity to go undercover with Fuentez to acquire evidence against them. Fuentez met twice with the Respondent, face to face, and at that time, Respondent admitted to using drugs with such persons. Fuentez instructed Respondent not to "do" drugs with suspects and not to proceed with any independent investigation on his own. Respondent told Fuentez at that time that he had been awake all night. Fuentez felt that Respondent was "hyper," and might still be on drugs, and therefore Fuentez told Respondent that they could not work together as long as Fuentez had the opinion that the Respondent was on drugs. On September 23, 1987, the day of the Respondent's second meeting with Mrs. Adkins and his only meeting with "Joe," Respondent phoned Fuentez twice. The first time, the Respondent said he had been talking to a prisoner named Michael Adkins who was dealing drugs with a Puerto Rican named "Joe." The Respondent specifically asked Agent Fuentez if Adkins had been dealing with "Joe" when Adkins had been arrested for the crime for which Adkins was currently incarcerated. Fuentez' testimony indicated that Respondent was clearly asking about the past status, not the present status, of the people named. At the time of this first call, Fuentez knew about Collins' investigation at Putnam but did not know Respondent had been specifically targeted. Fuentez formed the opinion that Respondent was trying to find out about FDLE investigations. He told Respondent he did not have time to look up information about the people Respondent had named and ended the phone call. Later the same day, Respondent called back to Fuentez and told him to forget the whole thing. Since the "meet" of September 23 occurred after dark and Respondent's phone calls to Fuentez seem to have occurred during business hours, the undersigned infers that both Respondent's phone calls to Fuentez preceded his "meet" with Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" on September 23, 1987. Respondent also had a conversation with Robin Edwards, a local police officer. Respondent related to him that he had been approached by a Putnam inmate, Michael Adkins, to buy or sell drugs. Mr. Edwards advised Respondent to talk to his trooper father or his superiors. At formal hearing, Edwards could not date this conversation closer than that it could have been in September 1987, but even so, it appears not to be an afterthought devised by Respondent only due to the March 1988 confrontation of Respondent by investigators. Lenard Ball is a Correctional Officer Inspector II. Upon his testimony, it is accepted that a standard of correctional officer behavior prohibits them from operating outside a correctional institution. Unless they are acting as prisoner escorts, correctional officers' authority ends at the boundary of their respective institutions. Upon Officer Ball's testimony, it is also accepted that each correctional institution may institute a policy permitting criminal investigations within that institution to be pursued by only one correctional officer, and that at Putnam, all officers are required to report all such conversations as Respondent was having with Michael Adkins to one of two superiors. In Ball's opinion, Respondent's actions were clearly prohibited by anti-fraternization rules and by rules prohibiting Respondent from placing himself and others in danger. Respondent was never an institutional investigator. In fact, he had only been certified as a correctional officer for approximately one month when the material events occurred. At formal hearing, Respondent testified credibly that the entire episode was only intended by him to achieve more in his position, that he had no connection with anyone in the local police department or the sheriff's office who could give him access to drugs, and that he had no other access to those evidence rooms. Respondent had consistently denied any mention of evidence rooms since the March 1988 investigation. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent had ever had any access to any controlled substances through any evidence rooms or otherwise. (See Finding of Fact 5) Further, Respondent represented that his phone conversations with Agent Fuentez scared him, that he only attended the September 23, 1987 meeting with Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" because he had been threatened by Michael Adkins with being turned in to FDLE, and that he took Chris Sanford, a Fire Department employee, with him to the September 23, 1987 "meet" as a witness for his own protection. Chris Sanford did not testify. Michael Adkins did not testify. There is therefore no further support or dispute to Respondent's intent or motivation from original sources.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of bad moral character as defined in Rule 11B-27.001(4)(c) F.A.C., issuing a reprimand accordingly, and placing his certificate on probationary status for two full years, subject to specific terms and conditions for appropriate education, training and supervision to be imposed by the Commission in its expertise, and providing for revocation of his certificate in the event those conditions are not timely met. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 2nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-2450 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Except where subordinate or unnecessary, PFOF 1-7, 10- 13, 16, 19-21 are accepted. PFOF 8-9 are accepted to the degree described in the RO. The PFOF contain argument and the quotation is only part of several pages and does not accurately reflect the exhibit or record as a whole. PFOF 14-15 and 17 are only part of several pages and do not accurately reflect the exhibit or record as a whole. PFOF 18 is rejected as unproved. Respondent's PFOF: None filed to date. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Smith 2720 Edgemore Palatka, Florida 32077 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffery Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a corrections officer in 1972 and was so certified at all times here relevant. Respondent was a season ticket holder to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1983 football games. He attended the game on September 25, 1983, with four friends. Before arriving at the game the group bought a fifth of whiskey. Respondent contends he had only one drink prior to the incident with the police officers but three police officers opined that Respondent was intoxicated. During the second half of the game, with the Bucs woefully behind and some spectators leaving the stadium, Respondent was yelling disparaging remarks about the Bucs and their performance on that day. Occasionally, Respondent was standing on his seat when he yelled the remarks. Respondent was more noisy than others in the section in which his seat was located and drew the attention of Jennifer Frye, a City of Tampa police officer serving as a uniformed off-duty policewoman paid the owners of the stadium to maintain crowd control. Officer Frye motioned for Respondent to come to the platform where she was standing, some four rows above Respondent's seat. Respondent did so, climbing between the people and seats behind him as he responded to Frye's summons. When Respondent reached Frye's position, she smelled alcohol on his breath and he appeared to her to be intoxicated. Respondent was somewhat annoyed in being called up by the policewoman and wanted to know why she had beckoned him from his seat. He was gesturing with his arms and asking what he had done wrong. Officer Lois Morraro, another off-duty member of the Tampa police force, was also working in uniform at the stadium. She observed Respondent respond to Frye's request and saw Respondent arguing. Morraro approached the two and positioned herself behind Respondent. Respondent told Frye he was a season ticket holder and was entitled to be upset when the Bucs were losing. Frye and Morraro decided to evict Respondent from the stadium and when Frye initially grabbed his hand Respondent pulled away. She then told him he was under arrest and grabbed his left arm and hand with a come-along grip. Morraro grabbed Respondent's right arm, twisted it behind his back, and moved the hand up toward the shoulders. They proceeded to propel the struggling Respondent down the steps to a holding area. When they reached the holding area they were joined by Sergeant Peter Ambraz, the off- duty Tampa police officer in charge of the stadium detail. Ambraz took Respondent's right arm while Morraro handcuffed Respondent. During this time Respondent was trying to keep from being handcuffed and in the process his elbow accidentally hit Morraro in the throat while she was standing behind him putting handcuffs on him. After Respondent had been handcuffed and taken to the police station, he revealed that he was a certified corrections officer. Respondent was subsequently tried for disorderly intoxication and fired from his job with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1988, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the employing agency, applied for certification as a correctional officer on behalf of petitioner, Eddie Lewis (Lewis). Accompanying such application was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by the Director of Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department of Corrections) which comported with existing law, and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lewis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provisions of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant of good moral character. 1/ By letter dated November 7, 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) notified Lewis and the Department of Corrections that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You made an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act, with a deadly weapon, a shotgun, but without intent to kill, to do violence to Walter Harrell, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and did an act which created in Walter Harrell a well-founded fear that such violence was imminent. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. In his request for hearing, Lewis specifically denied that he had committed any of the acts which the Commission contended demonstrated a lack of good moral character. The Commission forwarded Lewis' request for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. At hearing, the Commission offered no proof that Lewis had committed any of the acts contained in its letter of denial, or which otherwise rendered questionable the prima facie showing of good moral character demonstrated by Lewis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order approving Lewis' application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 18th day of April 1989.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Morales had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Morales has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Alfonso Morales, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 1979, petitioner Joseph William Smith executed a personal questionnaire in support of his application for a beverage license. On sheets of paper attached to the application, he listed some, but not all, of the occasions on which he was arrested. At one time respondent lived in Savannah, Georgia, where he was arrested at least as early as July of 1956. An arrest on July 10, 1958, eventuated in a two month stay in jail as punishment for armed robbery. On November 18, 1967, petitioner was arrested for threatening somebody with a weapon, an accusation of which he was subsequently found not guilty. In 1968, he was sentenced to 30 days for shoplifting. Petitioner was arrested for gambling with dice in January of 1971. He was arrested again on May 26, 1972. In June of 1973, he was found not guilty of robbery. Also in 1973, he was placed on probation for buying and receiving stolen property. In June of 1975, petitioner was found not guilty of murder. He was found not guilty of possession of marijuana in March of 1978. Petitioner lives in one of the worst neighborhoods in the United States. The uncontroverted testimony was that a person could be arrested simply for standing on a street corner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for a beverage license. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph W. Smith 818 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, James Battle (Battle), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Battle. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Battle had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Battle and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Battle filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Battle denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency record, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Battle on December 18, 1987, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1982 and 1983, while a junior and senior in high school, Battle used marijuana approximately 15 times. He has not used marijuana since his graduation from high school in 1983, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Battle's background, that Battle possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana during high school. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Battle, born May 18, 1965, used marijuana approximately 15 times, the last time being over 6 years ago when he was 18 years of age and a senior in high school. He has not used marijuana since, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Battle has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one year. His evaluations have been satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, and following his graduation from high school, Battle has been continuously employed. Additionally, he has served in the National Guard for almost five years, and attained the rank of E3. Overall, Battle has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, James Battle, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983, Walter Taylor (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 66856. On December 23, 19851, Respondent was certified by Petitioner, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 66855. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Riviera Beach Police Department (Riviera Beach PD) as a law enforcement officer. In April 1994, Respondent and his wife were divorced. They had been married 14 years and had minor children. Prior to the divorce, Respondent had several confrontations with his wife regarding her relationship with another man, a Mr. Chilton, whom she had met in or around 1988. During one confrontation in April 1993, Respondent slapped his then wife. At times, Mr. Chilton was present when the confrontations took place. At no time prior to the divorce did Respondent harm or threaten to harm Mr. Chilton. Subsequent to the divorce, Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton continued their relationship. In August 1994, Respondent wanted to attend his family’s reunion in New York but had insufficient funds to take his children with him. Respondent’s ex-wife agreed to attend the reunion with them. With her financial support, everyone could attend the reunion. Respondent and his ex-wife agreed to a pre- arranged time for them to meet on August 11, 1994, and drive to the reunion together. On August 11, 1994, prior to the pre-arranged time, Respondent and his children were packed and ready to leave. Respondent attempted to contact his ex-wife, so they could depart early. He called several places but to no avail. Having failed to locate his ex-wife, Respondent concluded that she was at Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent called Mr. Chilton’s apartment several times only to get an answering machine. He drove to Mr. Chilton’s apartment. By this time, it was approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Chilton’s apartment complex, he observed both Mr. Chilton’s and his ex-wife’s vehicles in the parking area. Respondent knocked on Mr. Chilton’s apartment door but received no response. Having knocked from two to five minutes, Respondent left but stopped nearby at a telephone. He repeatedly called Mr. Chilton’s apartment and again the answering machine answered. Respondent was convinced that his ex-wife was in Mr. Chilton’s apartment and that they were refusing to answer the telephone or the door. Respondent was upset and frustrated. Respondent returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment and began knocking again. The more he knocked, the more frustrated he became. His knocks became harder and louder until he was pounding the door. No one answered the door. Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton were afraid to open the door. At all times, Mr. Chilton and the Respondent’s ex-wife were inside the apartment. The door was locked and the deadbolt was engaged. Becoming more and more frustrated, Respondent hit the apartment door two or three times with both hands, arms raised, palms forward and with the weight of his body behind him. The force applied by Respondent knocked down the door. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment beyond the door frame. He told his ex-wife to come outside with him and talk. She immediately complied. While exiting Mr. Chilton’s apartment, Respondent informed Mr. Chilton to bill him for the door. The door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment was damaged beyond repair and the area surrounding the door was severely damaged. The dead bolt area on the door was bulged. The area on the door jam in which the dead bolt slid had popped and come loose and was indented. The door handle was very loose. The trim on the doorway was split. On many occasions Respondent has been involved in law enforcement raids in which he, personally, has had to break down doors with his body. The method used by Respondent to break down the doors during the raids was not the same method used by him on August 11, 1994. Even though Respondent’s action forced open the door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment, he reacted out of frustration, not with the intent to force the door open. However, Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. He should not have returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment but waited for his ex-wife until the prearranged time. Respondent’s actions could have escalated the situation into a more serious incident. He exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others. The incident was reported to the Martin County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies on the scene took pictures and completed a report. Mr. Chilton did not want to file criminal charges against Respondent but only wanted his door repaired. The Deputies assisted Mr. Chilton in somewhat securing the door, so that it would at least close. Approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 12, 1994, Respondent telephoned Mr. Chilton. Respondent apologized for the damage to the door and agreed to pay for the damage. Subsequently, Respondent telephoned the apartment complex’s manager and agreed to pay for the damage to the door. The cost of the door was $352.99. A payment plan was arranged in which Respondent would pay for the damage in installments. Due to financial constraints, Respondent was unable to comply with the payment plan as agreed upon. The final payment was made on or about February 2, 1995. Respondent had no reason associated with his law enforcement duties to enter Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent was off-duty and out-of uniform. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment without permission or invitation. Respondent is responsible for the damage to the door of Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Prior to the incident on August 11, 1994, in or around June 1994, Respondent received training in Anger Management. On August 3, 1994, Respondent was promoted to Sergeant, on a probationary status, by the Riviera Beach PD. As a result of the incident on August 11, 1994, the Riviera Beach PD conducted a personnel investigation. On January 24, 1995, it issued a notice of intent to take disciplinary action against Respondent -– a demotion from a Sergeant to a Patrol Officer, which included a five percent cut in salary. The disciplinary action was taken by the Riviera Beach PD. On November 2, 1994, Petitioner’s Probable Cause Panel issued Respondent a Letter of Guidance for the act of committing battery (slapping) upon his then wife in April 1993. At the time of the issuance of the Letter of Guidance, Respondent had successfully completed the Probable Cause Intervention Program. The Probable Cause Panel was not aware of the pending disciplinary action against Respondent by the Riviera Beach PD involving the incident of August 11, 1994. Neither Respondent nor the Riviera Beach PD notified the Probable Cause Panel of the pending disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Suspending Respondent’s certification for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of March, 1997.
