Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 11, 1983, and issued certificate number 19-82-502-08, which he still holds. For approximately the past eight years, Respondent has been employed by the Metro-Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department). During the first six years of his employment with the Department, he held the position of Correctional Officer I. His duties as a Correctional Officer I included supervising crews of inmates performing lawn maintenance work on public grounds outside the correctional facility in which they were housed. One of Respondent's supervisors was Jerry Meese, the Director of the Department's Operations Division. On September 26, 1986, while returning to his office from a lunchtime excursion, Meese observed a Department truck used to transport inmate work crews parked outside a private residence. The truck's presence in the residential area aroused Meese's suspicion. He therefore stopped to investigate. He soon discovered that Respondent and some inmates were in the area. One of the inmates was found to have some chewing gum in his possession. The inmate told Meese that Respondent had given him money to purchase the gum at a nearby store. A short walking distance from where Meese had encountered the inmate was a bag containing seven containers of beer. The containers were cold to the touch. Meese went to the store to which the inmate had referred and spoke to the store clerk. The store clerk advised Meese that the inmate, a short time before, had bought the beer that Meese had found in the bag. Meese discussed the matter with Respondent. It appeared to Meese that Respondent's speech was slurred and that his eyes were red. Upon his return to the office, Meese was provided with statements from inmates supervised by Respondent in which the inmates indicated that they had drank beer and smoked marijuana with Respondent. Shortly thereafter Meese learned that the inmates had tested positive for drugs. The Department had a policy which required a correctional officer to submit to drug testing if there existed a reasonable suspicion that the officer was involved in the illicit use of drugs. Based upon what had occurred that afternoon, Meese justifiably believed that he had grounds to invoke this policy and he therefore directed Respondent to submit to a drug test. He gave Respondent until Monday, September 29, 1986, to take the test. On September 29, 1986, prior to submitting to the test, Respondent was interviewed by Robert Sobel, an investigator with the Department's Internal Affairs Unit. Respondent freely admitted to Sobel that he "smok[ed] marijuana on a regular basis" and that he "would like to enroll in a program to overcome this problem." Later that day, at 3:10 p.m., in compliance with Meese's directive, Respondent went to the Consulab facility at the Cedars Medical Center in Miami and gave a urine specimen. The sample was screened by the use of an enzyme immunoassay testing procedure. The screening test was performed twice. On both occasions, the sample tested presumptively positive for cocaine and marijuana. The sample was then subjected to confirmatory testing. The thin layer chromatography (TLC) method was used. When performed by a competent technologist, TLC testing is accurate 95 to 99 percent of the time. The two technologists who tested Respondent's urine sample using the TLC method were highly competent. Their tests, which were completed at about 4:50 p.m., revealed the presence of cocaine metabolites 1/ and cannabinoids (marijuana). 15. The tests were accurate. Respondent had knowingly used cocaine and marijuana on or about the date of the testing. Notwithstanding the results of the testing, Respondent was not terminated by the Department. Instead, he was suspended. As a condition of continued employment, he was required to participate in a drug rehabilitation program and to remain drug-free. Respondent has met these requirements to the satisfaction of the Department. Not only has Respondent remained in the employ of the Department, he how occupies the position of corporal, a supervisory position to which he was promoted approximately two years ago. His post-September, 1986, employment record reveals that he has taken full advantage of the opportunity given him by the Department to rehabilitate himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character" in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, by virtue of his unlawful use of cocaine and marijuana on or about September 26, 1986; and (2) based upon such a finding, (a) suspend Respondent's certification for 30 days, (b) place Respondent on probation for a period of two years to commence upon the expiration of this 30-day suspension, and (c) include among the terms and conditions of his probation the requirements that Respondent submit to scheduled and monthly drug testing and that he agree to release the results of such testing to the Commission or its designee. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 10, 1990 and issued certificate number 05-89-502- 09. On May 30, 1990, Apalachee Correctional Institution Assistant Superintendent for Operations Joe W. "Bill" Davis, the chief corrections officer, received information to the effect that the Respondent possessed marijuana in his bachelor officer's quarters (BOQ) on the grounds of the Apalachee Correctional Institution, Jackson County, Florida at that time. Mr. Davis thereupon contacted Jackson County Sheriff's office investigator, Lieutenant Robby Wester, to assist him in an investigation of this report. Both Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester made contact with the Respondent at the BOQ in the afternoon of May 30, 1990. The investigating officers received the Respondent's permission to conduct a search of his quarters on that day. During the search of his quarters Mr. Davis discovered and seized a small amount of marijuana and two photographs of marijuana from a piece of furniture which was located next to the Respondent's bed. Lt. Wester spoke with the Respondent shortly after the seizure of the marijuana from the Respondent's room. The Respondent told Lt. Wester that the Respondent had been "tipped off" about the search two hours prior to the arrival of Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester and that he had destroyed five bags of marijuana which he had possessed in the Respondent's residence. The Respondent also admitted he had previously smoked marijuana but was drug free on this occasion, May 30, 1990. The marijuana (cannabis) which was seized by Mr. Davis and Lt. Wester from the Respondent's room was submitted to the FDLE crime laboratory, was analyzed and proved to be cannabis. As a result of the discovery of the marijuana in the Respondent's room the Respondent was charged by Lt. Wester with possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Lt. Wester did not arrest the Respondent on May 30, 1990 but told him to appear in court the following day. The Respondent, pursuant to notice to appear, appeared before the county court in Jackson County, Florida and in mid-July agreed to conditions of an order of pretrial intervention. The Respondent however failed to fulfill the conditions of the pretrial intervention order and was returned to the jurisdiction of the county court for the marijuana possession charge originally filed. The Respondent thereupon entered a plea of guilty to the marijuana possession charge on February 4, 1991. Judge Hatcher of the county court adjudged the Respondent guilty of the marijuana possession charge at issue herein and ordered the Respondent to be incarcerated, to pay certain costs, and to participate in a public works program. The Respondent was incarcerated at the Jackson County, Florida jail from February 4, 1991 through March 20, 1991 on the marijuana possession charge at issue in this proceeding. He has completed service of his incarceration time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the 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 Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission revoking the certification of the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Richter. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Respondent presented no Findings of Fact) 1. - 14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Rockenstein, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey S. Richter 3881 Highway 273 Graceville, FL 32440 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified corrections officer, certificate number 68527. On March 24, 1994, Sergeant Farless made a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Respondent. It was approximately 3:00 a.m. and Sgt. Farless had observed Respondent's vehicle fail to remain in a single lane. Sgt. Farless asked Respondent to produce a driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. When Respondent advised Sgt. Farless he had a firearm in the glove compartment, he was requested to exit his vehicle. When Respondent exited the vehicle, Sgt. Farless noticed that the Respondent's eyes were bloodshot, his balance unsteady, his speech slurred, and that he had a strong odor commonly associated with alcoholic beverages. Sgt. Farless directed Respondent to remain at the rear of the vehicle while he went to the glove compartment to secure the firearm. Sgt. Farless observed what appeared to be a piece of crack cocaine in the middle of the driver's seat. Deputy Hyde arrived at the scene in backup to Sgt. Farless. Sgt. Farless requested a narcotics identification test kit from Deputy Hyde for the suspected substance. Deputy Hyde field tested the substance taken from Respondent's vehicle and it received a positive reaction for the presence of cocaine. The positive test was observed by Sgt. Farless and Respondent. Sgt. Farless placed Respondent under arrest for possession of cocaine and secured him in the back of the sheriff's vehicle. Deputy Hyde and Sgt. Farless then searched the Respondent's vehicle and found a second piece of a substance suspected to be rock cocaine. Deputy Hyde performed a narcotics field test on the second substance seized from Respondent's vehicle which also reacted positively for the presence of cocaine. The criminal charges against Respondent were resolved through a pretrial intervention program. Because of such resolution, the two substances taken from Respondent's vehicle were never sent to a crime laboratory for further testing and verification. Sgt. Farless and Deputy Hyde have been trained in the use of the field test to determine drug identification. Each has numerous arrests resulting from the field testing of a suspected substance. The area Respondent was traveling through is known as a high drug area with a high crime rate. Although he was alone at the time of the traffic stop, Respondent theorized that someone had put the crack cocaine in his vehicle.
The Issue Whether Respondent may be disciplined for failure to maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a Correctional Officer and Correctional Probation Officer have good moral character. Respondent is charged with violating Section 893.13(1) and/or 893.13(6), or any lesser included offenses. See Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified Correctional and Correctional Probation Officer in the State of Florida. She has been employed in her field for fourteen and a half years, and lost her job as a result of the following events. On October 19, 2000, a search warrant was served at 1530 Northeast 3rd Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, a residence Respondent shared with her husband and two minor children. Upon search of Respondent's residence, law enforcement personnel discovered a marijuana "indoor grow operation," comprised of approximately 52 plants. Some plants were as much as five feet tall. Processed marijuana and marijuana being processed were also present. Law enforcement officers estimated the total street value of the marijuana confiscated to be approximately $53,000.00. This indoor-grow operation involved special apparatuses for lights, heat lamps, air conditioning, watering, fertilizing, and drying the marijuana in a utility room off the carport and special air conditioning and drying apparatuses in the back yard. Magazines on growing marijuana were located elsewhere in the house. The smell of processed marijuana permeated other parts of the house besides the utility room, which had limited access. The heat lamps in the grow room raised the temperature in the house. As a result of the search of Respondent's residence, Respondent was arrested for violating Section 893.13, Florida Statutes' prohibition against the cultivation of cannabis, the technical name for marijuana. Carol Ann Starling had worked with Respondent for approximately two and one-half years as a team member of a drug interdiction team with the Department of Corrections. Among Ms. Starling's and Respondent's responsibilities were entering correctional facilities unannounced, searching (including vacuuming the clothing of) inmates and placing suspected drugs in an assay machine. The team members then read the assay machine printouts to determine what type of drug had been discovered. Respondent and Ms. Starling specifically tested materials to locate or verify the existence of marijuana at the Dade Correctional Institution. Under these circumstances, Respondent's denial of knowledge of the marijuana grow operation in her residence is not deemed credible. Respondent was criminally charged with (1) manufacturing cannabis and (2) possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis. Each of these offenses constitutes a felony, pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes.1 Both charges were dismissed by a nolle/no information, due to "appropriate administrative action deemed sufficient in lieu of prosecution."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate #11-89-002-01. In February 1990, Samuel O. Best was employed as a police officer by the City of Port St. Joe Police Department. During the early part of February, Respondent accompanied a woman to a local motel where the two shared a room and engaged in sexual intercourse. While the two were in the room, the Respondent thought the woman smoked two and one-half cigarettes. The items she smoked looked like normal cigarettes. However, Respondent was not paying close attention to the woman's activities or any odor of the smoke because he had his mind on more prurient matters. As the two prepared to leave the room, the Respondent, as was his habit, straightened the motel room. The woman had dropped one of her cigarettes on the floor and Respondent picked up the cigarette and placed it in his pocket. The Respondent forgot about the cigarette in his pocket and kept it for approximately two or three days. Around February 8, 1990, the afternoon of the second or third day after his liaison with the woman in the motel, Respondent went to his father's home and sat on the front porch. The Respondent was on duty. While contemplating the bleakness of his life, in part due to the intense personal problems he was having with his wife, Respondent, who was a heavy smoker, began looking for a cigarette to smoke. He found the motel woman's cigarette in the pocket of a shirt he had worn for three days. He pulled it out, looked at it and lit it. During this activity the "insurance man" was walking up to the house. Officer Best thought the substance in the cigarette was tobacco. However, it tasted like perfume and he put the cigarette out after one puff. He then left the porch to get his father for the insurance man. There was an absence of any competent and substantial evidence reflecting the identifying the substance contained in the cigarette as marijuana. Additionally, no changes in Respondent's behavior were noted by any of his fellow officers or supervisors at any time surrounding the events on February 8, 1990. On February 22, 1990, Chief Richter of the Port St. Joe Police Department received a citizen complaint regarding the Respondent. The insurance agent complained that he had observed the Respondent in police uniform on the porch of the Respondent's father's home smoking. That same day, Chief Richter contacted the Respondent and directed him to come to Chief Richter's office to discuss the complaint. Upon his arrival in Chief Richter's office, Chief Richter told the Respondent what the citizen had alleged. 1/ Chief Richter asked the Respondent if he would answer questions regarding the allegation. The Respondent voluntarily agreed. The initial discussion between Officer Best and Chief Richter lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Officer Best's interpretation of what Chief Richter told him was that the Chief had decided that Officer Best had been smoking marijuana. Officer Best thought his Chief would not misinform him, and he did not argue with Chief Richter over the issue of whether or not the substance was marijuana. However, Officer Best did not know with any certainty what the substance was that he had inhaled briefly while sitting on his father's front porch. After the initial discussion, Chief Richter then placed the Respondent under oath and began to question him while tape recording the interrogation. From Respondent's point of view, the reference to marijuana during the interrogation was merely a convenient label for referring to the cigarette he briefly puffed on his father's front porch. Neither the reference or his responses to questions using the term marijuana was intended to be an admission of knowing drug use. Given the Respondent's demeanor at the hearing, it is understandable under the facts of this case, that even with some training in drug identification, Respondent was not able to identify the substance in the cigarette and that he was also very submissive to what he believed to be a superior officer's view of the matter. As a result of the Respondent's statement, he was discharged from his employment with the Port St. Joe Police Department. However, even with the dismissal, the overwhelming evidence in this case is that Respondent remains of good moral character and remains capable of performing his duties and working with his fellow officers. Moreover, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent at any time knowingly possessed or ingested marijuana. Given these facts, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Samuel O. Best be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), by unlawfully soliciting a woman to commit prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified correctional officer since 1990. He holds Correctional Certificate Number 53627. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was operating his motor vehicle in a light rain in the vicinity of 68th Avenue and 17th Street at approximately 8:45 p.m. He saw a young female standing alongside the road. Respondent stopped his car and rolled down the passenger side window. He asked the woman if she needed a ride. She replied, "Do I ride?" This response implied to Respondent that she would assume the superior position in any sexual activity. Respondent repeated his initial question, and the woman replied with the same answer. The woman was a police officer who was conducting a prostitution sting operation with other officers, who were not visible to Respondent. The woman did not testify, and the other officers did not hear the conversation that took place between the woman and Respondent, so the sole source of the conversation is Respondent, who testified at the hearing and gave a statement to investigators. The conversation as described in these findings of fact is derived entirely from Respondent. Respondent replied to the woman, "I got $20." The woman asked, "For what?" Respondent answered, "For a fuck." The woman asked Respondent would he give her a ride back to their current location, and Respondent assured her that he would. The woman then turned away, explaining to Respondent that she was getting her pocketbook, but actually signalling to her fellow officers to take down Respondent. Respondent had felt that something was wrong and had started to drive away, but the officers quickly apprehended him. Following his arrest, Respondent was charged with soliciting a prostitution. However, he completed a pretrial diversion program, and the State Attorney's Office dismissed the case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and revoking his correctional officer certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Laurie Beth Binder Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William Chennault Chennault Attorneys & Counsellors at Law Post Office Box 1097 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1097
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of Correctional Officers within the State of Florida. The Respondent is employed as a Correctional Officer at the Hendry County Correctional Institution. On December 25, 1998, the Respondent worked an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift as a Correctional Officer. After leaving his shift, the Respondent went home, showered, ate dinner, gathered Christmas gifts for his brother's family, and left the house with his wife. He took his wife to the "Eagles" club and returned to his house to take his wife's children to their father's house. He then drove to his brother's house, about an hour from the Respondent's home, where he visited and exchanged gifts. At about 11:00 p.m., the Respondent departed from his brother's house and went to the "Eagles" club, where he learned his wife had gone to the "Moon Cricket" bar. The Respondent proceeded on to the bar where he met his wife and friends. While at the bar, the Respondent consumed an indeterminate quantity of beer in the two hours remaining until closing time. The bar is small, and a "party" atmosphere prevailed. Apparently beverage orders were not taken, rather the bar's owner (a friend of the Respondent's) repeatedly brought bottled beers to the table. It is not possible to quantify the Respondent's consumption in a credible manner. When the bar closed shortly after 2:00 a.m. on December 26, 1998, the Respondent collected his wife, who was admittedly intoxicated, along with additional quantities of beer, and began to drive home. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on December 26, 1998, the Respondent was observed by Collier County Sheriff Deputy Tom Amey to be driving without headlights. Deputy Amey has completed substantial training in detection of persons driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances and in conducting field sobriety evaluation. At the time of initial observation, the Respondent's truck was stopped at an intersection facing towards Deputy Amey's vehicle. Deputy Amey flashed his headlights apparently to remind the Respondent to turn on the headlights, but got no response from the Respondent. When the Respondent proceeded through the intersection without headlights, Deputy Amey turned his vehicle around, followed, and then stopped the Respondent. After approaching the Respondent's vehicle, Deputy Amey asked for the Respondent's license and registration. The Respondent responded very slowly and deliberately to the deputy's instructions, fumbling with his wallet as he removed the documents. Deputy Amey observed that the Respondent's eyes were "glassy" and "bloodshot" and that there was a "moderate odor” of alcohol present. Deputy Amey also observed "cool, fresh" beer located on the front floorboard and the rear floorboard of the Respondent's extended cab truck. Deputy Amey asked the Respondent to exit the truck and the Respondent did so slowly. While talking to the Respondent, Deputy Amey observed that the Respondent's speech was slightly slurred and "thick-tongued." Deputy Amey asked the Respondent to submit to a field sobriety exercise. The Respondent stated that his knee prevented him from completing the physical tests. Deputy Amey administered the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" (HGN) test. Nystagmus is an involuntary eye motion (described as a "jerkiness") typically exhibited by persons under the influence of alcohol or other central nervous system depressants. The HGN test is a standard part of the field sobriety evaluation. An HGN test permits the observation of the level of "jerkiness" in a person's eyes. Normally, a person's eyes appear to move smoothly. Under the influence of alcohol or other substances, a person's ability to control eye movement is diminished, and a "jerky" motion is observable. Deputy Amey has received specific training related to administration of the HGN test. Upon observing the Respondent's eye movement during the test, Deputy Amey reported that the onset of the Respondent's nystagmus was "almost immediate" and "very distinct." Based on the deputy's observation, the Respondent was placed under arrest for driving under the influence and was transported to the "stockade" in Immokalee, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a Final Order imposing a one-year probationary period and requiring such counseling as the Department deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On February 6, 1992, Respondent received Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. In processing the application, Respondent conducted a criminal background check on Petitioner and received his criminal history as compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). By letter dated July 24, 1992, Respondent informed Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for licensure based upon grounds cited in the letter. On August 17, 1992, Respondent received Petitioner's request for a formal hearing and his explanation for the various arrests cited in the denial letter. On August 14, 1992, Respondent mailed Petitioner an amended denial letter citing additional grounds for the denial of his application. Respondent asserts that it is within its discretion to deny Petitioner's application because his criminal history reflects a lack of good moral character. All other grounds for denial of licensure of Petitioner were abandoned by Respondent at the formal hearing. The following arrests are cited by Respondent as justifying its denial of licensure to Petitioner. CHARGE ONE On August 21, 1968, Petitioner was arrested on charges of aggravated assault and forgery in Dyersburg, Tennessee. In 1968, Petitioner was discharged from the Army after having served in Viet Nam. He accompanied a friend he had met in the Army to Dyersburg, Tennessee, where he became involved in an altercation with someone who tried to run him off the road while he was riding his motorcycle. The person who tried to run Petitioner off the road stopped and attempted, without success, to hit Petitioner with a tire iron. Petitioner took the tire iron away from this person and hit the person on the head with the tire iron. Petitioner was arrested for aggravated assault and placed in the county jail. At the same time, he and two companions were charged with forgery for purchasing beer with worthless bank checks. Petitioner was told that he would not be tried until after the grand jury convened, and that he would have to wait in the county jail in the interim, a period of four months. Petitioner escaped from the county jail with the help of two other inmates and made his way to Chicago, Illinois. He was subsequently arrested and returned to Tennessee after he waived extradition. Petitioner was thereafter tried and convicted of aggravated assault, forgery, and grand theft and sentenced to three years imprisonment. On January 30, 1970, Petitioner's grand larceny conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor charge of attempt to commit a felony. His three year sentence was commuted and he was granted parole and immediately released after having served eighteen months in jail. Petitioner received a pardon from the governor of Tennessee for the felony convictions resulting from the 1968 arrests. CHARGE TWO In 1973, Petitioner was arrested and convicted of drunk driving in California and placed on probation. On August 2, 1974, in Palm Springs, California, Petitioner was arrested and charged with suspicion of burglary, a violation of California Penal Code 459. His probation from the 1973 conviction was violated, and he was sentenced to sixty days in jail and given two years of probation. The charge of suspicion of burglary was reduced to trespassing. Petitioner was intoxicated and was trespassing when arrested in August 1974. Petitioner testified without contradiction that he was not attempting to steal anything. CHARGE THREE In September 1980 in Riverside, California, Petitioner was arrested and charged with possession of a device for arson. Petitioner had been threatened by a gang after he identified a gang member as having stabbed a member of another gang. When three carloads of gang members came to his place of residence to threaten him, Petitioner made a Molotov cocktail and threw it in the street to disperse the gang members and to get the attention of the police. This charge was subsequently dismissed. CHARGES FOUR AND FIVE On May 13, 1988, Petitioner was arrested in Chicago, Illinois, and charged with unlawful use of a weapon and aggravated assault. On July 26, 1988, he was charged with aggravated assault; unlawful use of a weapon/gun; unlawful use of a weapon/tear gas; unlawful use of a weapon/blackjack; and failure to register a firearm. These arrests resulted from Petitioner's attempts to reduce drugs and prostitution in his neighborhood as a pro-active vigilante. On May 13, he fired two warning shots from a .25 caliber pistol into the ground to discourage three would-be attackers. Though the assailants left, an eyewitness filed a complaint with the police which resulted in Petitioner's arrest. On July 26, 1988, Petitioner was arrested while again acting as a vigilante by the same officer who had arrested him on May 13. He had on his person at the time of his arrest an unregistered firearm, a blackjack, and mace. These charges were dismissed when the arresting officer failed to appear in court. CHARGE SIX Petitioner heard threats against himself and his family because of his efforts to cleanup his neighborhood. On February 3, 1989, Petitioner went to a bar which the people who had been threatening him frequented. He confronted these persons and fired four shots from a .357 firearm into the ceiling. Petitioner was charged with criminal damage to property, reckless conduct, and unlawful use of a weapon. The charge of criminal damage to property was dismissed, but he was found guilty on the other two charges. Petitioner was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay $264.00. The conditional discharge was revoked in June 1990. CHARGE SEVEN On May 18, 1989, Petitioner was arrested in Chicago on a traffic violation and charged with resisting or eluding an officer. Petitioner was intoxicated and was driving around setting off firecrackers in the street when the police attempted to pull him over. Because he could not find a place to stop, he circled the block a few times before stopping the car. He was adjudicated guilty and had his driver's license revoked for three years. REHABILITATION Petitioner is an alcoholic, and his arrests can be attributable, in part, to the influence of alcohol. Petitioner has been an active participant in the Miami, Florida, Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center Substance Abuse Clinic since October 11, 1989, and has consistently abstained from alcohol since September 7, 1989. Since 1989, Petitioner has lived and worked in Florida. Petitioner has no criminal record since moving to Florida in 1989 and enrolling in the VA substance abuse program. Petitioner has worked for Kent Security since January of 1991, and his employer considers Petitioner to be an outstanding employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which grants Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class D Security Officer. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of February, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing The Capitol MS 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. James J. Killacky #206 1660 Northeast 150th Street North Miami, Florida 33181 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether, as provided by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, Petitioner may discipline the correctional and law enforcement certificates of Respondent due to his failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is subject to discipline, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, holding certificate number 200241, and a certified correctional office, holding certificate number 182381. Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional officer in 1998 and as a law enforcement officer in 2001. As a correctional officer, Respondent has worked at the South Florida Reception Center and Broward Correctional Institution. In December 2001, the Town of Golden Beach Police Department hired Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Respondent was employed at the Town of Golden Beach Police Department until December 31, 2002. He is presently unemployed. On December 12, 2002, Respondent visited a local lounge while off-duty. Sitting by himself, Respondent ordered a drink and visited the restroom before the server delivered the drink. Upon returning from the restroom, Respondent found the drink where he had been sitting. Respondent consumed the drink and went home. The next morning, Respondent reported to the police station and performed his usual duties, which included transporting witnesses to the State Attorney's Office, appearing in court, and picking up uniforms. Upon his return to the office, a fellow officer informed Respondent that the police chief had received a tip that Respondent had been smoking crack cocaine the prior night and had ordered Respondent to undergo a urinalysis. As directed by the chief, Respondent and the fellow officer immediately drove to the laboratory so that Respondent could provide a urine sample. Four days later, on December 17, 2002, the chief told Respondent that the urinalysis had returned a positive result for cocaine and placed Respondent on administrative leave. Two weeks later, Respondent resigned. The laboratory that conducted the urinalysis is certified by the National Institute of Drug Abuse as a forensic toxicology laboratory and is authorized by the Agency for Health Care Administration to perform drug-free workplace testing. On December 16, 2002, the laboratory screened the urine sample and found a positive result for a cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. As is typical with initial screens that produce positive results, on December 20, 2002, the laboratory retested the urine sample by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS), which is a sophisticated, sensitive test. The GC/MS confirmed the presence of benzoylecgonine at the level of 36,900 nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml). This level of cocaine metabolite is indicative of a large amount of cocaine ingested not long before the production of the urine sample. At the request of Respondent, the laboratory retested the urine sample a few months later and detected significant levels of a wide range of cocaine metabolites. At the request of Respondent's attorney, the laboratory sent part of the urine sample to a second, independent laboratory, which, performing GC/MS on December 10, 2003, reconfirmed the presence of cocaine metabolites. The reported level, presumably of benzoylecgonine, was over 10,000 ng/ml. The second laboratory reported a lower level because this was the maximum threshold of its testing equipment and protocol and possibly because the cocaine metabolites decompose over time, even in urine that has been frozen, as the first laboratory had done in preserving Respondent's urine sample. The only anomaly in the confirmatory test performed by the first laboratory appears at page 16 of Petitioner Exhibit 2. This document concerns the confirmatory testing performed on several samples, including Respondent's. In reporting testing parameters, the document states that the "ion ratio int. std." for Respondent's sample was 3.67. The bottom column suggests that the permissible range is 2.44-3.66. The form contains a statement at the very bottom: "REVIEWER: RESULTS OF GC/MS WERE WITHIN THE TOLERANCES ACCEPTABLE UNDER OUR SOP [STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE] FOR RETENTION TIME, QUANTIFICATION OF CONTROLS, MASS RATIOS, AND IDENTIFICATION WITH THE FULL SCAN MASS SPECTRUM." After this preprinted statement, the reviewer added in handwriting: "except 326340." This is the number assigned to Respondent's sample. Unfortunately, the parties did not address this anomaly in the confirmatory test, and the record does not explain the meaning of the reviewer's note or the out-of-range ion ratio. The only unusual feature of the first laboratory's confirmatory test, as revealed in the record, is that the laboratory used a smaller sample size because the results were so high that, absent a diluted sample, the first laboratory's equipment could not produce a concentration level. However, the process by which this adjustment is made is not unusual, and the first laboratory performed the necessary calculations to produce a correct result. The uncertainty introduced by the reviewer's note is eliminated, though, by the extremely high levels of cocaine reported by the second laboratory a few months later, and the wide range of cocaine metabolites reported by the first laboratory in its reconfirmation testing one year after the initial screening. Respondent's defense is that, unknown to him and while he was in the restroom, someone at the lounge poured a large amount of cocaine into his drink. This defense is unworthy of belief. Respondent claims that he conducted a personal investigation into his case after the drug test showed cocaine metabolites in his urine. In the course of this investigation, Respondent interviewed a bartender at a lounge some distance from the one that Respondent had visited on December 12, 2002. During this interview, a woman at the bar, Stacie Dalgleish, who had once been an inmate at a correctional facility at which Respondent had served as a correctional officer, overheard him talking about the facts of this case and interrupted Respondent's conversation to tell him that she had witnessed what happened to Respondent that night. As Ms. Dalgleish testified at the hearing, she told Respondent that, on the night in question, she had been at the same lounge and had seen another woman, Lisa Binger, who had been incarcerated with Ms. Dalgleish. While in a stall behind a closed door, Ms. Dalgleish witnessed Ms. Binger and another woman snort cocaine. Ms. Dalgleish explained that she had been able to see Ms. Binger because she was lined up perfectly with the crack between the stall door and the frame. Ms. Dalgleish testified that she then heard Ms. Binger tell her friend that she was going to get Respondent because he had gotten her friend. Later, while seated near the bar, Ms. Dalgleish testified that she saw Ms. Binger pour the white powdery contents of an envelope into Respondent's drink, while Respondent had left his drink unattended. For his part, Respondent "explained" that he had caused a friend of the Ms. Binger to lose her job as a bartender when he had reported to the bar owner that Respondent had seen the woman stealing cases of beer. The improbability that Ms. Binger would part with a large amount of cocaine to incriminate Respondent is moderate. The improbability of the chance encounter between Respondent and Ms. Dalgleish, while Respondent was conducting his investigation is high. The improbability that, in a public restroom, Ms. Binger would theatrically announce her plans to surreptitiously pour cocaine into Respondent's drink, as she recklessly snorted cocaine with another woman--all while observed by Ms. Dalgleish sitting in a closed stall, but peering through a crack in the door that happened to reveal the scene that she described--is incalculably high. Exacerbating these credibility problems was Ms. Dalgleish's performance as a witness. She was an eager witness who, upon concluding her testimony, quickly walked over to Respondent to obtain his approval of her unconvincing performance. Respondent is lying about how he came to ingest a large amount of cocaine a short time before his drug test.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's correctional officer and law enforcement officer certificates. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James C. Casey, Esquire Slesnick & Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6020 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Florida 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
