The Issue The issue is whether Respondent knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the property of another valued at $300 or more with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of the right to the property, or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to his own use, or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and other substantive and material evidence of record, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this cause, Respondent was a certified Correctional Officer, having been certified on or about April 2, 1991, and issued Correctional Officer Certification No. 92406. On October 8, 2000, Respondent, in the company of two other persons, Steven Smith and Henry Fox, went to a business named "Four Star Refinish" located at 898 County Road 621, Lake Placid, Florida. David Trobaugh is the owner of Four Star Refinish and the compressor at issue in this proceeding. The building housing Four Star Refinish had been largely destroyed by fire before October 8, 2000, and the compressor, valued at more than $300, was located outside the building, undamaged. On October 8, 2000, at the business site of Four Star Refinish, Respondent, Steven Smith, and Henry Fox, agreed to take the compressor and together removed the compressor from the premises and transported it to the residence of Steven Smith. On October 12, 2000, Respondent gave a statement to Robert Neale, Highlands County Sheriff's Department, admitting that he, Steven Smith, and Henry Fox loaded the compressor onto a trailer and together transported it to Steven Smith's residence. Respondent, after his admission, assisted Deputy Neale in recovering the compressor by contacting Steven Smith by telephone, who then provided the location of the compressor. At the location provided by Steven Smith, the compressor was located and recovered by Deputy Neale, identified by the owner, David Trobaugh, and returned to him. Respondent, with knowledge of the unlawful taking of the compressor, with knowledge of the parties who unlawfully removed the compressor, and with knowledge of the compressor's whereabouts, concealed his participation in the aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony by Steven Smith and Henry Fox, when initially approached by law enforcement. As a direct result of the foregone and on April 1, 2001, in the case of State v. Jerry E. Lambert, the State Attorney entered a nolle prosequi, in Highlands County Circuit Court Case No. CF00-00685A-XX, under which Respondent was charged with one count of Grand Theft in Excess of $300, with the stated ground for the nolle prosequi listed as "Case Referred to CDS (Citizen Dispute Settlement). An Agreement was reached and restitution and fees paid." Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, without permission of the owner and without legal right to obtain, did in fact obtain and remove an air compressor valued at more than $300 from the site location of the lawful owner. Respondent's admitted participation in the commission of a felony offense evidenced his intentional failure to maintain good moral character and proves his failure to maintain qualifications required of a certified correctional officer. Respondent offered no mitigating evidence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's Correctional Officer Certification No. 92406. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 18th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry E. Lambert 126 East Royal Palm Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, 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
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibit received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Mr. John S. Moncrief, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on June 12, 1980, and was issued Certificate Number C-9151 Mr. Moncrief worked in various law enforcement positions from 1979 through 1984. From December 1, 1981, until September 27, 1982, Mr. Moncrief worked as a Corrections Officer for the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office. During the entire time that Mr. Moncrief worked in law enforcement, the only charges or complaints made against him were those which form the basis for the charges in this case. During the months of March and April of 1982, Mr. Gerald Ray "Cowboy" Powell was an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. During a portion of that time Ms. Lynda Carroll was also an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. At all relevant times Mr. Powell was housed in a downstairs cell which was used for trustees and minimum security inmates and Ms. Carroll was housed in the women's cellblock which was on the second floor of the jail facility. It was not possible for an inmate housed on the second floor to come down to the first floor without the assistance of a jail employee. On two occasions during the months of March and April of 1982, Moncrief allowed Ms. Carroll to come downstairs at night and visit Mr. Powell in the latter's downstairs cell. In order to do so, it was necessary for Mr. Moncrief to enter the portion of the jail facility in which female inmates were housed and to open locked doors for Ms. Carroll. On both of the occasions mentioned immediately above, Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll engaged in sexual intercourse in Mr. Powell's cell.2 On one occasion during the month of April of 1982,another Corrections Officer employed by the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office allowed Mr. Powell to go upstairs at night and visit with Ms. Carroll in her cell. On this occasion Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll did not engage in sexual intercourse. Mr. Moncrief was not involved in any way with Mr. Powell's upstairs visit with Ms. Carroll. During March and April of 1982 the policies and procedures in effect at the Okeechobee County Jail prohibited male Corrections Officers from entering the area in which female inmates were housed unless the male Corrections Officer was accompanied by a matron or a female dispatcher. Policies and procedures in effect at that time also prohibited inmates of one sex from visiting with inmates of the opposite sex. Mr. Moncrief was aware of these policies. It was a violation of these policies for Mr. Monerief to allow Ms. Carroll to visit with Mr. Powell in the latter's cell.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. enter a Final Order dismissing all charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint on the grounds of insufficient evidence. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1985, Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH ISH, 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 23rd day of September, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Kutina McLeod, should have received credit for answers provided on the examination for the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers (the exam).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a correctional officer. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers. As such, it must administer the examinations used to assure competency for certification. The examination at issue in this proceeding is known as the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers. It is a multiple-choice test that is scored by marking the best of the proposed answers. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. As to this Petitioner, four questions were challenged that the Petitioner did not receive credit for on the exam. As to each challenged question, the Petitioner felt her answer should have received credit. All of the questions challenged by the Petitioner were taken almost verbatim from the exam's course materials. The Petitioner attended the course and was instructed as to each of the challenged matters. The instruction did not deviate from the language that later appeared on the exam. None of the challenged questions proved to be statistically invalid by virtue of the number of wrong answers provided to the question. In fact, as to one of the Petitioner's challenged questions, 88 percent of the persons tested responded accurately. Only 5 percent of the persons tested gave the answer that the Petitioner provided. The Petitioner's confusion as to the answers she provided was probably influenced by her experiences as an officer within a jail setting. The Petitioner provided answers based on the totality of her experience and not just the material covered in the instructional course. None of the Petitioner's answers, however, were more correct than those set forth by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kutina McLeod 309 Julia Street Key West, Florida 33040 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
The Issue Whether the Petitioner' termination from employment was in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1999, the Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (Department) working as a correctional officer at the Santa Rosa County Correctional Institution in Milton, Florida. The Petitioner was employed as a Correctional Officer, on probationary status. On February 25, 1999, the Petitioner was arrested for a purported traffic violation by a law enforcement officer in Escambia county. An officer of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, at approximately 1:08 a.m., on that day, observed the Petitioner's blue Toyota Tercel run a stop sign. The officer pulled in behind the vehicle and the vehicle made a quick turn off the road behind a closed business establishment and turned off its lights. The officer stopped near the vehicle and approached the driver's side and asked the driver for identification. The driver was later identified as the Petitioner, Perry Foster. Mr. Foster told the officer that his one-year-old son had torn up his driver's license. While the officer was talking with the Petitioner the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. Believing a narcotic violation was taking place the officer summoned another officer with a drug-detecting dog. The dog detected marijuana in the vehicle. Both the Petitioner and his passenger, Eric Adams, were placed outside the vehicle while the investigation was continuing. Officer Price, who brought the dog to the scene, detected the odor of marijuana on the person of Eric Adams. Ultimately, Eric Adams allowed a search and Officer Price retrieved a small package of marijuana from Mr. Adams shirt pocket. Mr. Adams was arrested for "possession of marijuana under 20 grams." The officer found no marijuana or drugs inside the vehicle although the dog strongly alerted on the driver's seat where the Petitioner had been sitting. There was the odor of marijuana along with signs of blunt cigar usage. Blunt cigars are typically used, hollowed out and packed with marijuana to smoke marijuana, without revealing its presence and use. In any event, the Petitioner was not arrested for possession or use of marijuana, none was found on his person, and he was given a traffic citation and released. The friend or family member who was his passenger was arrested for possession of marijuana. The evidence is unrefuted that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle with a passenger, knowing that that passenger possessed and was using marijuana in his presence. The Petitioner's employer, specifically Warden Ardro Johnson, was made aware of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office offense report that detailed the above facts and circumstances concerning the Petitioner's arrest and the arrest of his companion on the night in question. While the Petitioner remonstrated that he only was charged with running a stop sign and had not been using drugs and that he later passed a drug- related urinalysis, that position misses the point that his termination was not because of drug use. Rather, the Petitioner was dismissed by Warden Johnson from his position as a probationary employee pursuant to Rule 60K-4.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, because his employer believes that he committed conduct unbecoming a correctional officer. The true reason the Petitioner was terminated was because, as delineated by Warden Johnson in his letter to the Petitioner of March 23, 1999 (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner made a personal choice to overlook, ignore, or fail to report a criminal violation occurring in his immediate presence. Warden Johnson thus explained that this leaves a clear question as to whether the Petitioner had, or would in the future, perform his correctional officer duties in the same manner by ignoring, overlooking or failing to report infractions. Because of this and because he was a probationary employee and thus had not yet established his full job qualifications, the Petitioner was terminated. There is no evidence that he was terminated based upon any considerations of his race. There is also no evidence that he was replaced in his position. Moreover, there is no evidence that if he was replaced he was replaced by a new employee who is not a member of the Petitioner's protected class. The evidence that the Petitioner was in the car at approximately 1:00 a.m., on the morning in question with a passenger who was possessed of and using marijuana is unrefuted and is accepted as credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Henderson Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Perry A. Foster 1882 Gary Circle Pensacola, Florida 32505 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
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. On March 20, 1991, Ella Verdell Green, Earl H. Hamilton, Sr., Paul Hudson Morris, and Joe Garcia, Jr. took a course from respondent's William Dysvik, a licenced instructor (T.55), and received certificates of completion "as part of the requirements for a Class 'D' license." Petitioner's Exhibit No. The course lasted eight hours, (T.17, 19, 41) 50 minutes of each hour being devoted to instruction. T.56. It began with Mr. Dysvik's talking to the class about security, (T.22), after which he passed out pamphlets which he and the class "went through." Id. After about 30 minutes, he told the students to study the pamphlets and invited questions. Ms. Green and others asked him several. T.32. That afternoon, a test was administered and discussed. The instructor "seemed just like a school teacher." T.35. He took his responsibilities seriously, and taught the approved curriculum in its entirety. T.42. Every 15 or 30 minutes, he left the classroom for five minutes. T.47. Part of the time he was out of the classroom he was preparing handouts. T.45, 47. As the day progressed, he and the class discussed each chapter of the materials. T.46.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint it filed against respondent in this matter. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 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 26th day of June, 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 Whether the Respondent is guilty of gross incompetence and falsification of course sheets as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence, the stipulation of the parties, and testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 1, 1987, as an instructor and was issued instructor certificate number 129487. Respondent was employed at Central Florida Criminal Justice Institute located at the Mid-Florida Vocational Technical Institute, beginning in March 1989. During the relevant period, Respondent was employed as Program Director/Coordinator of advanced and specialized training. Respondent was also the Assistant Director of the Academy. Respondent has prior experience as a corrections officer and as a certified probation officer. Respondent received a Masters degree in education and is a certified teacher. In February of 1992, Ron Kazoroski was the Director of the Criminal Justice Institute at the Mid Florida Vo-Tech. Respondent was responsible for initiating night courses at the Institute for the benefit of the officers who worked the second or third shifts. February 1992 was the second time that the Instructor Techniques class had been offered at night. Respondent had planned to be more involved in the instruction of the Instructor Techniques course than she had been in the previous time the course was offered and had scheduled herself to teach several blocks of instruction. However, the week before the course was to start, Respondent was informed that she needed major surgery within two days. Respondent spent Wednesday and Thursday trying to find instructors to cover for her, prior to her scheduled surgery on Friday. Respondent contacted Pam Eckler, an instructor at the academy, to assist her in locating qualified instructors who could teach on short notice. Respondent was trying to prevent the cancellation of the course. On the first night of class Respondent was recuperating from the surgery. Respondent submitted six certificates of absence for the period of January 28 through February 26, 1992. The Instructor Techniques course started on February 3, 1992, and finished on February 28, 1992. The course was scheduled in the evening from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Florida Department of Law Enforcement regulations required the Instructor Techniques course to be 80 hours long, and the class was formatted for that many hours. In February of 1992, Barbara Bushnell was a Corrections Officer employed by Orange County Corrections and assigned to the Training and Staff Development Department. Bushnell was assigned to the Academy prior to the Instructor Techniques class in February of 1992. Bushnell was certified as an instructor by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. In February of 1992, Pamela Eckler was a Correctional Training Supervisor for Orange County Corrections, Department of Training and Staff Development. Eckler was also an instructor, certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Eckler was asked by the Respondent if she was interested in teaching the evening Instructor Techniques course in February of 1992. Eckler agreed, and was offered the opportunity to teach the classes of her choice. Eckler decided to teach Adult Learning Theory on February 3, 1992, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Liability and Ethics on February 4, 1992, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.. On February 21 and 25, 1992, Eckler was assigned to monitor the student presentations from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. On February 3, 1992, Eckler received a telephone call from the Respondent who had just had surgery on Friday, asking her to move her block from 7:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Respondent also asked Eckler to give the class a short orientation to the course. Eckler taught her two-hour segment and allowed the students to leave on February 3rd at 7:30. On February 4, 1992, Eckler taught a four-hour block on Liability and Ethics. Eckler utilized the whole time period, and the students were not let out early. On February 20, 1992, Respondent called Eckler and told her that she was not needed to teach on February 21 because the Respondent had given the class an off-campus assignment. Eckler did not teach the class on February 21, 1992. Eckler was scheduled to monitor the students’ presentations on February 25, 1992, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Several students had a problem with the lesson plan development. Eckler characterized the problems with the lesson plans as major, with the problems being in different areas. In February of 1992, Georgette Thornton, a Lieutenant with Orange County Corrections and a certified instructor by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was asked if she was interested in teaching part of the Instructor Techniques course. Thornton called the Respondent who indicated that she needed an instructor for February 10, 11, and 12, 1992, as an emergency replacement. Thornton agreed to teach two hours on February 10, four hours on February 11, and four hours on February 12th. Thornton found out from the students that it was the second week of class, and the students were not aware who the Respondent was. The students did not know what their final project was. Thornton talked to the Respondent, explaining her observations. She asked her to speak to the class about their responsibilities for their final project. Respondent appeared at the class on February 11th and told the class what their final project was. Respondent also covered part of the class material that Thornton was supposed to instruct. Thornton then elaborated on what Respondent had said. Thornton did not have sufficient materials given to her by Respondent to fill up the four-hour time block she was scheduled to teach. She did not have an adequate opportunity to supplement the materials given to her by Respondent, since they were given to her on Friday and the class was on Monday. Respondent told Thornton in front of the class to cover the rest of the material and to allow the students to leave early. Thornton covered everything that was in the guide and released the students at 7:30 p.m. on February 11th. Thornton also gave them a thorough review on the 12th of the items that they could expect on the exam. Thornton released the students at 7:00 p.m. Thornton decided to write a memo to the director. Thornton was concerned about the poor organization of the class and the lack of guidance given the students by Respondent. Thornton did not feel that the students were getting the amount of instruction they deserved in the class. A week or two before the class was scheduled to start, Bushnell was asked by the Respondent to teach a portion of the Instructor Techniques class being offered in February of 1992. Bushnell was asked to replace an instructor who had an emergency situation and could not teach. Bushnell was asked to teach Lesson Plan Development on February 13 and 14, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Bushnell had in her possession a copy of the goals and objectives of the Instructor Techniques course, which was part of the materials she previously had in her possession. She also had in her possession the FDLE Instructor Techniques Instructor Guide, which had all of the different areas to be covered in the course, including goals and objectives. Bushnell was given an ample amount of time to prepare for her block of instruction. Bushnell taught the Instructor Techniques class from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on February 13, 1992. Bushnell placed posters on the wall showing the two types of outlines for lesson plan development. She was informed by the students that the Respondent had already told them that the outline format was not going to be used. Bushnell informed them that there were several different types of formats, and that she would be instructing them using the outline format. The outline format was taken from the Instructor Techniques Instructor Guide. On February 14, 1992, Bushnell met with the Respondent prior to class to sign her contract for teaching the class. She also discussed details concerning the expectations of the class. The Respondent told Bushnell that the students were used to having some time during lesson plan development to work on their lesson plan outside of class. She expected Bushnell to give the students an outside assignment. Bushnell covered the materials in the outline and instructed her class until 9:30 p.m. Bushnell did not have enough time to cover all of the material she was supposed to cover. The students stated that they were having trouble with the lesson plans and requested her help in their development. Bushnell offered to help them on their lesson plans during the time she was scheduled to teach. Bushnell had concerns about how the class was being conducted and wrote a letter to Director Kazoroski, stating her concerns with the Instructor Techniques class. The students were upset due to a lack of direction being given by the Respondent. The students were also confused due to misunderstandings on how the lesson plan should be written. In February of 1992, Jacqueline Miller was an instructor in the Instructor Techniques course offered that month that the Respondent coordinated. Miller was asked by the Respondent to critique the students making their presentations. Miller was not required to do any preparation to complete her instruction, since it only involved critiquing the students. Miller contracted to critique the students for twelve hours between February 24 and 27, 1992. Miller utilized the maximum amount of time allowed for each day that she was in class. Although the skill level of the students varied considerably, none received a failing grade. On March 2, 1992, Eckler, Thornton, and Bushnell met with Kazoroski to discuss the problems with the class. The students were confused because Bushnell had taught Lesson Plan Development using the guidelines from the Instructor Guide, but the Respondent instructed the class to do it differently. This inconsistency confused them. Respondent did not assist them in their lesson plan development. The course was not well organized. The class was given a week to work on their lesson plans at home, with no one available to assist them, and they were confused about how to complete them. The Respondent’s instructor skills for this class were criticized. However, Respondent’s skills were not evaluated. On several occasions, the students were allowed to leave early from class. The Respondent would tell the class that they had assignments to do at home or out of class. The instructor notes to the Instructor Guide state that [T]his instructor guide was developed with the intention of providing the basic instructional material for this course. The individual instructor will find that only the minimum has been provided. None of the blocks of instruction provide the entire material for the topic being instructed. Each instructor is expected to use the provided material as a starting point and a reference source. The instructor notes to the Instructor Guide state that [E]ight hours have been provided for lesson plan development in class. This block was provided to allow the instructor to assist the students in their individual development of lesson plans. This does not suggest that students will not be required to work outside the classrooms. It was the policy of the Criminal Justice Institute to keep class documents, including the attendance sheets, from every class that was offered at the institute. The documents were kept in a file cabinet in the director’s office and were supposed to be kept in a secure place. The attendance sheets were required for FDLE audits to show that each student attended the requisite number of hours for the class. The records of the Instructor Techniques course offered at Mid-Florida Vo-Tech in February 1992, were reviewed including the overall attendance records for the Instructor Techniques class, which were signed by the Respondent. It was the policy of the Criminal Justice Institute that 50 minutes of instruction, with a 10 minute break, constitute 1 hour of credit. The class was given credit for 80 hours attended. However, there were 16 hours of class cancelled by Respondent, including the class on February 28, 1992, when that class was cancelled by Respondent because the course was over. All of the students received credit for four hours on February 3, 1992, when Eckler allowed the students to leave after two hours. For February 11 and 12, 1992, Respondent gave each student credit for four hours, although Thornton allowed the students to leave after two hours on February 11, and after three hours on February 12. The students were given credit for four hours for February 19, 20, and 21, 1992, for lesson plan development that was done outside the classroom. The FDLE requirements are that the Instructor Techniques course allows for eight hours of lesson plan development in class. It was usual for an academy to have an instructor available during the lesson plan development to answer any questions or concerns of the students while they worked on their lesson plans in class. FDLE rules stated that if a student missed over ten percent of the class, that student was deemed to have not successfully passed the class. The early release hours and the out-of-class assignments given to the students were not reflected on the overall attendance sheet signed by the Respondent.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violations of Sections 11B-20.0012(1)(b), (d), (e), and/or (f), Florida Administrative Code, and that the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phyllis Blackmon Ledbetter 202 Dalton Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 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
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is 32 years old, unmarried, and a 1992 graduate of Auburn University with a degree in business administration. He attended college on a athletic scholarship and was a captain of the football team. 2. Since graduation he has worked extensively with teenagers as a youth development professional with Boys and Girls Club of Central Plorida, as a recreational leader with Orange County Parks and Recreation; as a substitute teacher at Maynard Evans High School, where he worked with physically impaired students; and as a night monitor at The Center for Drug Free Living. 3. On November 27, 2000, Petitioner submitted an Employment Application with the Department of Juvenile Justice seeking the position of Juvenile Probation Officer. 4. As a part of the November 27, 2000, Employment Application, Petitioner indicated that he had not been convicted, pled nolo contendere, or had adjudication withheld on a crime which is a felony or first-degree misdemeanor. 5. On October 30, 2000, Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Good Moral Conduct which states, in part, "I have not committed an act which constitutes domestic violence .. ." 6. As a result of background screening, it was determined that on a January 14, 1990, Petitioner was charged with "Assault 3rd" in Auburn, Alabama, as a result of a meleé involving members of a fraternity and the football team. On February 19, 1990, the charge was dismissed. 7. The background screening also revealed that on November 11, 1995, Petitioner was charged with Battery (Domestic Violence); was arrested on November 29, 1996 (over a year later) for the offense; and had adjudication withheld after a plea of nolo contendere to the offense on February 5, 1997. 8. On February 5, 1997, Petitioner was sentenced to supervised probation for 363 days, required to attend a batterer's intervention program, and charged $115 in court costs. He successfully completed probation. 9. On December 16, 2000, Petitioner wrote the IG stating: This letter is to clarify why I failed to indicate the offenses on the notarized Affidavit of Good Moral Character. I did not indicate the offenses because I thought you are only supposed to write down convictions of a felony or first-degree misdemeanor. I did not know pleading no contest was counted as guilty. Therefore, I thought the circumstances did not fit my offenses. I conversed with a Department of Juvenile Justice employee when applying for the position, and they [sic] informed me that the Department was only looking for felony convictions. They said a misdemeanor arrest will not disqualify me. This is the reason why I failed to indicate the offenses. 10. On January 11, 2001, Petitioner wrote the IG stating: This letter is to clarify the incident that happened on the evening of November 11, 1995 at Heroes Night Club, Orlando, Florida. This incident was between a Ms. Monica Pryor and myself. At the time Ms. Pryor and I were dating. At the nightclub, Ms. Pryor and I got into an argument and exchanged harsh words that resulted in us pushing and shoving one another. Ms. Pryor then left the nightclub with her girlfriends. She called my cell phone to inform me that her girlfriends were taking her to the police station. We talked later that evening and apologized to each other. During the conversation, she let me know that she had filed charges against me and there was a warrant out for my arrest and would drop the charges in the morning. As far as I can recall from our conversation, Ms. Pryor didn't suffer any physical bruising from this incident. This is one incident in my life that I deeply regret. I feel that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing. This incident happened over 5 years ago. Since then, I have experienced healthy relationships without any hostile contact involved. I have been blessed to counsel several young people and I've helped young men from making the same mistake that I made. I believe this experience has made me a better person and has given me a testimony to share with others. In the past 7.5 years, I have worked in child development, education and recreation. I have worked with the Boys and Girls Club of Central Florida, Center for Drug Free Living, Orange County Parks and Recreation, and I am presently employed with Orange County Public Schools. I ama member of the New Church of Faith in Orlando, Florida were I've helped with youth banquets and church activities. If you have any questions about my spiritual leadership and commitment, please call Pastor David Beacham at (407) 296-2664. 11. Petitioner testified that even though Ms. Pryor had told him that she would "drop the charges," he elected to plea nolo contendere just to get the matter behind him. 12. On January 19, 2001, Petitioner submitted a second affidavit of Good Moral Character indicating that his record contained "one or more of the disqualifying acts or offenses .," and circled the reference to the domestic violence statute. 13. Ken Davis, of Maynard Evans High School in Orlando, Florida, submitted a letter which observed that Petitioner was a "diligent and conscientious person." 14. Yvette Johnson, Universal Orlando, an occupational health and safety specialist, submitted a letter in which she characterized Petitioner as an "asset to the troubled youth in the community . . . never failing to instill the values desired by the church." 15. Ruthenia Moses, who has a Master's Degree in Social Work from the University of Connecticut, who has worked as a clinical therapist, and who was, at one time, the second in command of the Orange County Work Release Center, testified that Petitioner has "an amazing ability to relate to young people," was a "kind and sincere individual of good moral character. I highly recommend him to anyone who works with young people." She further testified that "if I had a business serving youth at risk I would want Petitioner on her team." 16. Christine Barbery, who has a Master's Degree in Legal Studies from the University of Central Florida and is employed by Florida Department of Children & Families as a Family Services Counselor Supervisor, reports that Petitioner is "responsible, hard-working," "setting an admirable example," "an excellent candidate for a Juvenile Probation Officer-type position." She worked for the Department of Juvenile Justice from 1995-1997 and Department of Children and Families since 1997. She has worked with Petitioner with young people at Maynard Evans High School and finds him "caring and dedicated." She "has no qualms about Petitioner's qualifications to be a probation officer." 17. Gloria P. Cleary, Recreation Specialist, Orange County Parks and Recreation, in a letter, characterized Petitioner as a "very enthusiastic and responsible person." She had observed Petitioner in his role as a recreational leader at Liberty Middle School. She further indicated that she would not hesitate in hiring Petitioner in the future. 18. Petitioner was guilelessly candid in his testimony. He is remorseful and contrite regarding the 1995 domestic violence incident. He has conducted his life since that incident in such a way that rehabilitation is indubitably demonstrated. He has an obvious desire to work with troubled teenagers as a Juvenile Probation Officer.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles Brown, pro se 7251 Minippi Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 For Respondent: Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification in employment. DONE AND ENTERED this “Ir day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. lec 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 10 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this XI day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Brown 7251 Minippi Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class DI Security Officer Instructor License, number DI89-00375 In May or June of 1994, Respondent taught a security officer course in Naples. The course was intended to qualify students for a Class D security officer license. Three students enrolled in the course. Respondent taught the entire course on two consecutive nights. Instruction on the first night ran from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Instruction on the second night ran from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm, with the last two hours devoted to the security officer examination. Respondent administered a final examination to the students, which they all passed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent. ENTERED on January 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 24, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Michael V. Jones, pro se 344 Benson St. Naples, FL 33962
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to a question on the Corrections Officer Basic Recruit Training Examination should be sustained and Petitioner’s score increased by award of additional credit for the answer given by her.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for testing and certification of corrections officers within the State of Florida. Petitioner is an applicant for certification, having taken the examination on November 20, 1996. The minimum score required to pass Section 5 of the examination is 80 percent. Petitioner received a score of 78 percent. Examination materials were clearly and unambiguously presented when Petitioner took the examination. The challenged examination contained sufficient and correct information for a candidate to select correct responses. Question number 37 is the subject of Petitioner’s challenge. The question and possible answers were posed by Respondent’s examination as follows: A small, injured child requires care. The parents cannot be contacted, but the child says you can help him. You provide care because of . consent informed consent the Baker Act the Medical Practices Act Petitioner selected “informed consent” as the appropriate answer to the question. Respondent deemed that answer inappropriate due to a minor child’s inability to grant informed consent. The correct answer to the question is the first choice, “consent”. The term necessarily includes “implied consent” which is applicable to minor children and others unable to consent to treatment. Correct responses to the exam questions are supported by approved reference materials. Correct responses did not require knowledge beyond the scope of knowledge that could be reasonably expected from a candidate for certification. The examination question challenged by Petitioner was reliable and valid. The challenged question is not arbitrary, capricious or devoid of logic. There exists no evidentiary basis to award Petitioner additional credit for her examination response.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying the relief requested by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 22nd day of May, 1997. DON W. DAVIS 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 22nd day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Chasity L. Durbin 708 MacMahon Starke, FL 32091 Mark P. Brewer, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 A. Leon Lowry, III, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this proceeding concerns a dispute as to whether the Petitioner successfully passed the State Officers Certification Examination, and specifically, a dispute involving the wording of certain examination questions.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, dismissing the Petition filed herein in its entirety for lack of prosecution and lack of evidence in support thereof. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Gerald Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Jocelyn Mathis Post Office Box 1753 Lynn Haven, Florida 32444
