The Issue Whether the Petitioner submitted a false test result to the Miami-Dade College School of Justice in order to register for the Correctional Officer Basic Recruit Training Course.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant to become a corrections officer. As such, she was required to take and pass the BAT as a prerequisite to the Corrections Officer Basic Recruit Training course. It was Petitioner’s intention to take the requisite course offered at Miami-Dade College. The Respondent is the state agency responsible for the licensing and certification of all corrections officers. On February 7, 2002, the Petitioner took the BAT for corrections officers. The Petitioner scored a 58 percent on the BAT and was given a “fail.” In order to pass the BAT, a score of 68 percent must be achieved. Those who fail the BAT may retake the test not sooner than 30 days after the original test administration date. According to the Petitioner, she did not understand that she had failed the BAT. Petitioner alleged that two men who she thought worked for Miami-Dade County advised her that she had passed the examination. More specifically, the men told Petitioner of the need for Haitian corrections officers and they promised to help her obtain employment as a corrections officer. In return, the Petitioner was to pay the men a certain amount of money as compensation for their help. In truth, the men were not connected to Miami-Dade County. There is no evidence that such individuals were authorized to procure Haitians such as this Petitioner for employment as corrections officers. Moreover, the test results that they furnished to Petitioner, which she then gave to Miami- Dade College, represented she had taken the BAT on March 7, 2002. Petitioner did not take the examination on March 7, 2002. The BAT results dated March 7, 2002 represented Petitioner had achieved a “pass” on the test. Petitioner knew or should have known that a test date of March 7, 2002, was not accurate or possible since she did not take the BAT on that date. Additionally, she should have realized that the only test date that could be stated as her own was February 7, 2002 as that was the only date Petitioner took the BAT. In order to register for the corrections officer basic recruit course at Miami-Dade College, Petitioner gave the BAT results with the March 7, 2002, date to the registering agent. The March 7, 2002, “pass” result did not accurately reflect the Petitioner’s performance on the BAT. The Petitioner maintains that the two men who sought her money in exchange for their help in obtaining the corrections officer job perpetrated any wrongdoing and that she was an innocent dupe in their plot. Neither of the individuals testified in this case, and according to Petitioner, their whereabouts is unknown. The Petitioner turned in the March 7, 2002, BAT results in order to register for the basic recruit course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order disqualifying the Petitioner from taking the BAT for a period of five years in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-35.0011(5). S DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2005, 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 8th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Ronald J. Cohen, Esquire Ronald J. Cohen, P.A. 8100 Oak Lane, Suite 403 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act or acts of age discrimination against Petitioner by not selecting him for promotion to sergeant with the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Steven L. Boles, was employed at the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office in April 2001 as a deputy sheriff. Petitioner's date of birth is June 15, 1958, making him approximately 47-48 years old at all times related to the promotion issues, which are the subject of this proceeding. Petitioner completed 34 college classes while a deputy sheriff and attained a Bachelor's Degree from Troy State University. He was continuing his education towards a Master's Degree during the promotion period at issue. Petitioner had over 20 years' experience in the United States Air Force, during which his duties included managing a 24-person flight, supervising, planning, administering, and executed law enforcement and security training for a 270-person unit. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement recognized Petitioner's qualifications as being equivalent to those required by the State of Florida for certified law enforcement officers. During Petitioner's time as a deputy sheriff, he worked one position besides his road patrol duties. In 2003, he transferred to a property detective position where he served for almost a year. When he did not receive training that he deemed necessary to better perform his job, he transferred back to his road patrol position. Petitioner was certified as an all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") instructor in April 2006. Petitioner did not serve in a supervisory capacity while employed by Respondent. Under Sheriff Wendell Hall's administration, the promotional process for sergeant and lieutenant was established in General Order D-017. Applicants were ranked on an eligibility list based upon their scoring for specific criteria: advanced training courses, formal education, seniority, supervisory experience, written examinations, and an oral review board. Sheriff Hall promoted from the top of the list in order of ranking. The Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") is the bargaining agent for deputy sheriffs. During collective bargaining negotiations in 2005, the FOP asked Sheriff Hall to change the promotional process to provide greater flexibility in promotions. The FOP believes that the top-ranked applicant is not necessarily the best candidate for an available position. The sheriff and the FOP executed a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") in 2005 to implement changes in the promotional process that would afford more flexibility. Pursuant to Article 9 of the CBA, the parties agreed that General Order D-017 would be utilized in promotions. To effect the changes requested by the FOP, General Order D-017 was revised in December 2005. The new policy continued to provide that applicants would be ranked based upon scoring for specific criteria, but added field training officer experience ("FTO") as a new category to be scored. Additionally, the policy provided that the division captains and department major would review the promotion roster and provide a written recommendation to the sheriff for promotion of candidates. The sheriff would be provided with the top five names for one vacancy and one additional name for each additional vacancy. The new policy for promotion was provided to the FOP for review prior to its enactment. Pursuant to the CBA, the FOP could request impact bargaining within ten days of receipt of the policy. Because the FOP did not object to the policy, it became effective on December 26, 2005. The revised policy, General Order D-017, was provided to all members of Respondent, including Petitioner. Petitioner was aware that the process had been changed to permit the division captains and the department major to make written recommendations for promotion. Petitioner received a memorandum from Sheriff Hall on February 17, 2006, informing him of his eligibility to sit for the written promotion examination on March 22, 2006. Petitioner learned in that memorandum that credit for training courses and formal education would not be given for anything that had not occurred and was not present in the training office on or before March 10, 2006. When vacancies for sergeant and lieutenant became available in 2006, the promotional process followed the revised policy. Points were allocated to the applicants under the revised criteria, and the top 20 candidates were ranked. Major Steve Collier and Captains Jack Onkka and Jim Spencer met on May 26, 2006, pursuant to the newly-adopted policy, to review the applicants and make promotion recommendations to the sheriff. Because there were six vacancies for sergeant, the top 10 names on the roster were reviewed. Petitioner was ranked number five on the roster. Major Collier and Captains Onkka and Spencer concluded that the primary consideration for the recommendations for sergeant and lieutenant would be the motivation and initiative displayed by the applicants while employed at the Sheriff's Office. Believing that these qualities demonstrate the foundation of leadership, Collier, Onkka, and Spencer discussed each of the applicants to determine who best exemplified these characteristics. Collier, Onkka, and Spencer recommended six applicants who were ranked in the top 10 of the promotional roster: George Hawkins, Joseph Dunne, William Dunsford, Wayne Enterkin, Jerry Salter, and Todd Reaves. Prior to the review by Collier, Onkka, and Spencer, three of these deputies were ranked higher in the roster than Petitioner and three of them were ranked lower. The reviewers selected these six deputies for promotion to sergeant because each had undertaken an assignment outside his normal duties or otherwise had distinguished himself in a manner that set him apart from the other candidates. George Hawkins, ranked number one on the roster, was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience. Further, he performed as an acting supervisor when the shift sergeant was absent, which the reviewers deemed significant. Field officer training was particularly valued by the reviewers because it required the deputy to serve as a front line supervisor for trainees as well as an instructor and mentor. Joseph Dunne also had performed field officer training and consistently volunteered for special operations projects that were after hours. William Dunsford, although not a FTO, was a member of the hostage negotiation team and, pursuant to this assignment, was on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Similar to Dunne, Dunsford volunteered for special operations after hours. He particularly impressed Major Collier with noteworthy arrests and for his high level of professionalism and motivation. Wayne Enterkin was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience and his initiation of the drug court officers program, which involved juvenile offenders. He particularly distinguished himself in the drug court program. Jerry Salter was recommended as a result of field officer training experience and his assignment to the special weapons and tactics ("SWAT") team. As in the case of hostage negotiators, SWAT team members must undergo additional tactical training and are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They must also maintain a high level of physical fitness to participate in this unit. Todd Reaves was recommended because of his field officer training experience and his participation on the hostage negotiation team. Reeves also made noteworthy arrests in the northern part of the county, which was not a particularly busy area. Reeves had also received a lifesaver award for his extraordinary actions in providing care to a canine officer who was shot by a suspect. Petitioner was not recommended because the reviewers were not aware of any activities and assignments that set him apart from the other candidates. They were unaware of the fact that Petitioner had become certified as an ATV instructor, since that occurred on April 21, 2006, after the March 10, 2006, information deadline. The reviewing panel would not have given as much credit for Petitioner being an ATV instructor, even if his certification had occurred before March 10, 2006, since this activity did not require as much of a time commitment as a field training officer, hostage negotiation team member, or SWAT team member. The panel also passed over William Bass (ranked number two on the roster) and Christian Turcic (ranked number seven). Deputy Bass was deemed not particularly motivated and refused a transfer to a busier district when it was offered. Deputy Turcic was passed so he could complete his new assignment as a trainer of a new dog. Once he completed his assignment, he received a promotion to sergeant in September 2006. The age of the candidates for promotion was not a topic discussed by the reviewing panel. Sheriff Hall promoted Deputies Dunne, Dunsford, Enterkin, Hawkins, Reeves, and Salter in June 2006. He based his decision to promote these deputies upon the recommendations of his staff without regard to their age. When Petitioner became aware of the identities of the promoted deputies, he tendered a brief letter of resignation, dated June 15, 2006, in which he stated that his total loss of faith in the administration caused the need for him to leave immediately. Petitioner followed the brief letter with an email to Sheriff Hall on June 16, 2006, in which he elaborated on his qualifications and justifications of why he should have received a promotion to sergeant. Petitioner informed Sheriff Hall that he believed a "good-ol-boy system" was in place in the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office. In his letter and email resigning from Respondent, Petitioner made no mention of his age as a factor in his failure to be promoted to sergeant. Petitioner never inquired as to why he was not promoted. He met with Sheriff Hall, who informed him that he could be considered for promotion at a later date and encouraged him to contact Major Collier. Petitioner never spoke with Major Collier regarding his failure to be promoted to sergeant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven L. Boles 262 County Road 617 Hanceville, Alabama 35077 Robert W. Evans, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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
Findings Of Fact On April 24, 1987, the Respondent received official confirmation that he had been hired as a Correctional Probation Officer I in the Petitioner's Fort Myers office, effective May 8, 1987. The Respondent had been previously employed as a probation officer in Virginia from September of 1977 until December of 1983. The Respondent went to the Petitioner's Fort Myers office to complete some preliminary paperwork before he began work. On May 5, 1987, the Respondent signed a Statement of Understanding. The document requires the reader to acknowledge that he has read, and fully understands, Section 943.16, Florida Statutes. The statute, which was provided to the reader, requires a trainee who attends an approved criminal justice training program to reimburse the agency for the training costs if he does not remain with the agency for a one-year period. During his employment, the Respondent attended an approved basic recruit training program at the agency's expense. Prior to his attendance, the Respondent requested that his previous training program credits be brought before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission so that a waiver could be obtained to exempt him from the training program. The Petitioner did not seek an exemption from the training program for the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent attended the program at the expense of the agency in order to obtain certification as a correctional probation officer in Florida. Less than one year after his employment began, the Respondent resigned from the Department of Corrections. On November 28, 1987, the Petitioner demanded reimbursement in the amount of three hundred dollars from the Respondent for the training program. The Respondent has refused to pay the three hundred dollars as he has a different interpretation of the statute which gives the Petitioner the authority to seek reimbursement. The Respondent contends that he was not a "trainee" as defined by the statute. He further asserts that the agency had the opportunity to seek an exemption from the program for Respondent. When the agency chose to send an experienced probation officer to a training program that could have been waived, it did so without right to reimbursement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the pleadings and documents received into evidence at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Edward T. Goldstein holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 174841, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1992, covering the areas of science, junior college, administration and supervision. Based upon an investigation conducted by Police Detective Darron Peter Castiglione with the Hollywood Police Department, respondent Goldstein was arrested in September of 1977 and charged with two counts of first degree murder for the shooting and killing of his wife and son. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent was found to be incompetent to stand trial and spent several years at the South Florida State Hospital. By "Order to Transport" dated March 30, 1981, Arthur J. Franza, Circuit Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, found respondent competent to stand trial and ordered him to be transferred from the Hospital and placed in the custody of the Broward County Jail. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On June 1, 1981, respondent was indicted for two counts of murder in the first degree. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). After a trial, respondent was adjudged guilty of two counts of murder in the first degree by Circuit Judge Franza. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On February 18, 1982, Judge Franza entered his Order sentencing the respondent to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum twenty-five (25) year sentence on each of the two counts, the sentences to run concurrently. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5).
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violations of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and that respondent's Teaching Certificate Number 174841 be permanently revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 28th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Ruffolo & Wilson The Law Building 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Edward T. Goldstein Inmate No. 08163 Avon Park Correctional Institute Avon Park, Florida Joseph Varon, Esquire 2432 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida Donald Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional officer on April 28, 1988, and issued him certificate number 86967. At all material times, the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employed Petitioner as a correctional officer. At the time of this incident, Respondent worked at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center (TGK). For December 20-21, 1999, Respondent reported to TGK for a shift that began at 10:30 p.m. on December 20 and ended at 6:30 a.m. on the next morning. Respondent's position was a unit manager of Unit K4-2. As the unit manager, Respondent was responsible for the care, custody, and control of all inmates in this unit. This responsibility included the duty of ensuring that all inmates were present and accounted for in the unit, and Respondent was required to conduct an inmate headcount and in- cell checks of all inmates. Correctional officers conducting in-cell checks document the time of their checks on a Visual Checks log. The purpose of the Visual Checks log is to inform the correctional officer's superior and other correctional officers that the officer entering the information in the log walked the entire unit at the time noted and visually checked all inmates housed in the unit. If, as is customary, the correctional officer found nothing amiss, he would enter "QRU" in the log, which informs his superior and other correctional officers that all was well in the unit at the time indicated for the check. During his shift of December 20-21, 1999, Respondent made seven entries in the Visual Checks log for his unit. The indicated times were hourly, on the hour, from 11:00 p.m. on December 20 through 6:00 a.m. on December 21. For each entry, Respondent recorded a headcount and wrote in the Visual Checks log, "VISUAL CK UNIT/INMATES ALL QRU." At 9:15 a.m. on December 21, 1999, another correctional officer discovered that inmate Carlos Nevis in room 552, which is in the unit for which Respondent was responsible, had hanged himself to death. The question in this case is whether Mr. Nevis hanged himself on Respondent's watch. If so, given the close proximity of the hanging body to the door window through which an officer makes a visual inspection of the cell, the inference readily follows that Respondent did not conduct a visual check of Mr. Nevis's cell, as Respondent indicated he had done on the Visual Checks log. When the body of Mr. Nevis was found, it was already displaying the effects of rigor mortis. The one witness who had indicated otherwise retreated from his earlier statement and, visibly uncomfortable, testified only that he could not recall if the body felt stiff or hard. Four other witnesses testified that the body was stiff to the touch when it was discovered. The time of death is contested by two expert witnesses. Petitioner relies on the Chief Medical Examiner for Miami-Dade County. He conducted an autopsy and found substantially digested food in Mr. Nevis's stomach. The food appeared to be a green vegetable and red beans, as well as a tan fluid of less than one cup in volume. The food was from dinner on the evening of December 20, not the 1:00 a.m. breakfast on December 21, which had no vegetables. Considering the witness reports of body stiffness, Petitioner's expert concluded that Mr. Nevis died not much after 4:00 a.m.--and well prior to 6:00 a.m.--on December 21. The expert also noted that the fire rescue squad declared Mr. Nevis dead at 9:22 a.m.--two minutes after they arrived at the scene-- and the absence of any indication of chest compressions, bagging, or ventilation is consistent with the finding that Mr. Nevis had been dead several hours by the time his body was discovered at 9:15 a.m. Respondent's expert has served as the regional medical examiner, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, and Medical Examiner for Dade County since 1972 and is now a forensic pathologist consultant. However, Respondent's expert could not adequately account for the partially digested food found in Mr. Nevis's stomach. Respondent's expert tried to explain that emotional stress would slow digestion, but Petitioner's expert countered convincingly that many persons who have decided to end their lives find peace in their final hours--a premise that would be consistent with the fact that Mr. Nevis had the presence of mind to prepare a final note to his girlfriend and tuck a Bible into his waistband prior to hanging himself. Even Respondent's expert had trouble establishing a time of death considerably past 6:00 a.m. Called as a witness in his own case, Respondent testified that he started the 6:00 a.m. check at 5:45 a.m., and a visual check of the entire 48-room unit takes ten to fifteen minutes to complete. Respondent thus testified that he saw Mr. Nevis alive a few minutes before 6:00 a.m. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent falsely noted in the Visual Checks log that he had checked Mr. Nevis's room at 6:00 a.m., or even 5:45 a.m. Despite his testimony to the contrary at the hearing, Respondent never checked the room at the round that he claimed to have performed at, or shortly before, 6:00 a.m. on December 21.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___ 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 23rd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey Slesnick & Casey 10680 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33172-2108
The Issue Whether Respondent is qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, by failure to successfully complete the required training, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 29, 1993, as a corrections officer, and was issued Certification Number 141634. On August 17, 1992 the Respondent signed up for and attended orientation for the Public Safety Recruit/Corrections course conducted by the Lake County Area Vo-Tech Center in Eustis, Florida. The contents of the Public Safety Recruit Manual was explained to the class and Respondent received a copy of the manual. The academic grading policy in the manual provides that the minimum passing grade that a student must achieve on each exam is a score of 75 percent. A student may fail only one exam and still remain in good standing at the academy. Respondent signed a Student Acknowledgment of School of Public Safety Requirements and Rules of Conduct. He acknowledged that he had read and understood them and agreed to comply with the standards. Respondent failed the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission defensive tactics practical examination with a score of 66. On October 27, 1992, Respondent was notified orally and in a written memorandum from the program coordinator that he had failed the examination. However, he was given until July 29, 1993 to remediate and requalify. Respondent did not take any steps to requalify in this area. On November 10, 1992, Respondent failed Block Test 1 with a score of 59. On November 13, 1992, Respondent was notified orally and in writing of his second examination failure. He was then advised that in accordance with the Master Plan of Instruction and the grading policy of the school that he was terminated from the program. Respondent's final grade for the Public Safety Program was listed as an Incomplete. Respondent was advised that he would be required to retake the entire recruit program in order for him to receive certification. A CJSTC 67 Training Report Form was completed by the Lake County Area Vo-Tech Center for the Public Safety Recruit/Corrections course sequence number 15-92-502-02 and was forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training in Tallahassee. The Training Report form reflects that forty-six recruits attended the course. Thirty-nine were listed as having passed and seven were listed as failed or incomplete. Respondent was listed as having failed the program. The Training Report for Respondent's class was received by the Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training on April 12,1993. Due to a programmer's error, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training's Automated Training Management System (ATMS) computer system automatically generates a certificate and certificate number when an individual who is employed is entered into the system regardless of the grade achieved. The procedure in place at the time required a Department employee to visually scan the certificates being generated and remove the ones for those persons who had failed or did not complete the program. Respondent was employed at the time his name was entered into the ATMS. The ATMS generated a certificate with Respondent's name on it, Certificate Number 141634. Respondent was certified as a corrections officer as of January 29, 1993 and the certificate was forwarded to him. Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission in error and the certification should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent has failed to complete a commission-approved basic recruit training program, as required by Subsection 943.13(9), Florida Statutes (1993), and that Respondent's certification must be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 16th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 - 17 Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen Simmons, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Dubose 242 West 6th Street Apopka, Florida 32702
