The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on October 1, 1987, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 83658. Respondent has been employed since that time by the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, assigned to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Institute, the stockade. He is also certified by the Commission as an instructor and has taught at the Academy. Respondent is a very professional, "by-the-book" correctional officer. He is considered by his supervisors to be an excellent correctional officer who performs his job efficiently. He has received numerous commendations while at the Department, including a humanitarian award and the Department's monthly recognition award. His annual evaluations rate him consistently above satisfactory or outstanding but for some need for improvement in attendance. January 28, 1994, was Respondent's birthday. He and Pamela Gray, the woman with whom Respondent then lived, walked on the beach together and then went to Denny's Restaurant. While there, they encountered three young women whose car had been stolen while they were inside Denny's. Respondent offered them a ride home, and they accepted. Respondent, in Gray's car, and Gray drove the women to Hamlet Estates Apartments and entered through the security gate. Once inside the complex, Respondent and Gray were walking the women to their apartment when they saw a juvenile walking around looking in the recreation room. They commented to each other that it was too late for a child that age to be out. Since it was after 3:00 a.m., Respondent and the others approached the juvenile who appeared to be 10 to 12 years old. Respondent asked him why he was out at that time of the morning, and the juvenile said he lived there. Respondent asked him which apartment he lived in, and the juvenile stated an apartment number. The young women with Respondent and Gray advised that the apartment complex used letters, not numbers, on the apartments there. Respondent asked the juvenile to show Respondent where he lived, and Respondent and the boy walked off together. The boy was unable to identify an apartment where he lived. The boy was also evasive about his name and telephone number. Respondent and the juvenile returned to where Gray was waiting for them. The young women went to their apartment, and Respondent and Gray drove the juvenile to the security guard booth at the entrance to the complex. Gray waited in the car, while Respondent and the juvenile walked over to the booth and spoke to the security guard. Respondent identified himself to security guard Marvel Williams as Officer Ford and showed her his correctional officer badge. Respondent asked Williams if the juvenile lived there, and she confirmed that he did not. Respondent used the telephone to call the telephone number the juvenile told him was his parents' telephone number, but the number was disconnected. Respondent was concerned about leaving the juvenile at the complex where the juvenile had no right to be. He was concerned that something might happen to the child or that the child might be intending wrongdoing. Respondent then called the Miami-Dade Police Department precinct nearby and requested that a patrol car be sent to pick up the juvenile and take him home. Respondent was told that no unit was available to come there. Respondent then decided that he would drive the juvenile to the precinct and leave him there until the police could take him home. He told the juvenile to come with him, and they walked over to Gray's car. Respondent opened the back door, and the juvenile got in. Respondent then got in the car and drove out of the complex. Because the security guard had some concern about a child going somewhere with a stranger, she copied down Respondent's license number and a description of the vehicle as Respondent exited the complex. She then pushed the redial button on the telephone to verify that Respondent had in fact called the police and discovered that he had. She then wrote an incident report describing what had happened. When Respondent arrived at Station 6, he, Gray, and the juvenile went inside. Respondent and the juvenile approached the desk officer, and Gray sat down in the waiting area. Respondent introduced himself as Officer Ford and showed the police officer his correctional officer badge and identification. He then told the police officer what had transpired and requested that the police take the juvenile home. At the request of the police officer, Respondent wrote down his name, his badge number, his identification number, and his beeper number. The desk officer then buzzed the door to the back area to unlock it and allow Respondent and the juvenile to enter the back area of the station. Respondent held the door for the desk officer and the juvenile, and the juvenile walked into the back area. Respondent told the desk officer that he was tired and was going home. He then walked out of the station, and he and Gray drove home. The desk officer did not try to stop Respondent from leaving. Not knowing what to do next, the desk officer contacted his supervisor, asking him to come to the station to deal with the juvenile. When his supervisor arrived, he described what had happened. In doing so, he told his supervisor that Respondent was an off-duty police officer. This erroneous assumption arose from the fact that Miami-Dade police officer badges and correctional officer badges look alike, but for the wording across the top of the badge. The desk officer's supervisor called Respondent's beeper, and Respondent returned the call. In a hostile and profane manner he told Respondent to return to the station and fill out appropriate paperwork. Respondent told him he would not come back to the station and hung up on him. The supervisor again beeped Respondent, and Respondent again called him back. The supervisor threatened to call Respondent's precinct and report him to internal affairs, and Respondent advised him that Respondent was not a police officer but was a correctional officer. The supervisor then contacted correctional internal affairs and reported Respondent for impersonating a police officer. The police attempted to find out the juvenile's name and address, but he only gave them false information. They finally fingerprinted him and discovered that his fingerprints were on file and that there were several outstanding warrants/pick-up orders against him. Instead of taking him home, they transported him to juvenile hall. Respondent did not identify himself as a police officer to anyone that night. Respondent did not restrain the juvenile or imprison him against his will. The juvenile went with Respondent both to the security guard booth and to the police precinct without protestation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Braverman, Esquire 2650 West State Road 84 Suite 101A Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
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
