The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification for failure to meet minimum screening requirements for good moral character as specified by Section 409.175(2)(h), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact On May 11, 1986, an officer from the Office of Sheriff, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, arrested and charged Petitioner with battery on a spouse, a violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor. The incident arose when Petitioner's wife, Keturah Latimer, took the family car to arrange a visit between Petitioner's stepson and the stepson's father. Angered by his wife's actions, Petitioner struck her with his fists causing considerable bruising to her forehead and head. He was twenty-eight years old at that time. Petitioner spent thirteen days in jail and was released on bond. The record does not indicate the exact disposition of the case. However, Petitioner admits that he struck his wife. He also expressed remorse for his behavior. Petitioner has a clean record subsequent to this incident in May of 1986. He is now thirty-eight years old. Petitioner is raising his stepson, Demetrius, as his own son. Petitioner and his wife are attempting to adopt Lashon, the daughter of a family friend. Respondent's protective services staff placed Lashon in the Latimer's home when Lashon was three weeks old. Lashon is now three years old. The Respondent's protective supervision staff conducted a home study which found the Petitioner's home to be an appropriate placement for Lashon. Petitioner has been employed for the past nine (9) years with Premier Plastering doing stucco work. Petitioner attends church occasionally at Macedonia Baptist Church and his wife and children attend We're for Jesus Church. The Latimer's have been married for seventeen (17) years and have three (3) sons of their own; they have had no involvement with Respondent's protective investigations staff. Petitioner and his family attended and completed Respondent's training for prospective foster parents.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment as a family foster home parent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes the undersigned's rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-10. Accepted in substance and as restated in Findings of Fact 1-12 of this Recommended Order. The undersigned agrees with Respondent's findings of fact but not with the proposed conclusions of law. The testimony presented by the Latimers was very persuasive. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Lawrence D. Latimer 1608 Golf Forest Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 728 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate salesman. The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether he is qualified for that licensure based on his answers to questions 9 and 16 of the licensing application form and based on his criminal record.
Findings Of Fact Milton Henry Hochran (Petitioner) filed his application for licensure as a real estate salesperson on or about February 26, 1999, (the date it was stamped "received" by the Division of Real Estate). The application includes Petitioner's notarized affidavit that all answers are true and correct and are as complete as his knowledge, information, and records permit, "without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." Petitioner's application is checked "yes" to this question: 9. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. From the record in this proceeding it is not clear what, if anything, was attached to the application as required to explain the "yes" answer to question 9. However, the licensing file includes a 6-page report from the F.B.I. Criminal Justice Information Services Division outlining a series of arrests and convictions of Petitioner in the State of New York. At the hearing in this proceeding Petitioner admitted these convictions, after trial or by plea of guilty: 9/12/92: resisting arrest (sentenced to 30 days and 3 years probation). 2/2/93: disobeying a mandate (sentenced to 25 days and $250.00 fine). 10/21/93: disobeying a mandate (sentenced to 8 months). 6/11/94: criminal contempt (sentenced to 8 months). 3/11/95: disobeying a mandate and violation of probation (sentenced to 3 months probation). 4/29/95: driving while intoxicated (license suspended 90 days and $500.00 fine). 9/27/95: criminal contempt and aggravating and harrassing communications to annoy or alarm (sentenced to 6 months and 5 and 3 years probation respectively). 8/26/98: disobeying a mandate (sentenced to 4 months). According to Petitioner his series of criminal convictions relate to disputes he had with his ex-girlfriend and with his step-brother in New York. He moved to Florida to get away and to take care of his mother, as he promised his father. He wants to earn a living so he can support his mother; he also wants to get married and run for mayor. He reports monthly to his probation officer, as required. He states that he is "pro- capitalism" and would like to form his own business. On his application for licensure Petitioner checked "no" to this question: 16. Have you used, been known as or called by another name or alias other than the name signed to the application. (If your answer is yes, state name or names used, the period of time and place where used). At the hearing in this proceeding Petitioner explained that the answer was not intended to deceive or mislead but was a misunderstanding. He signed his application "Mr. Milton Henry Hochron." He was born Milton Enrique Hochron in Queens, New York. After a dispute with his father, Petitioner had his name legally changed to Rick Henry Trinidad. Some of his criminal records are in that name. After his father died Petitioner had his name changed to Milton Henry Hochron. The latest change-of- name order is dated May 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Halpern, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Real Estate Bureau 135 West Central Boulevard, Suite 1150 Orlando, Florida 32801 Milton Henry Hochron 1320 Rock Springs Drive Melbourne, Florida 32940 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulations 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4), in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violation(s) proven.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a law enforcement officer certified by the Florida Criminal Justice and Standards Training Commission on July 30, 1986, and holds certificate number 102180. At the times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office (ECSO). He has since retired. On October 21, 2011, at 12:07 p.m., Respondent responded to a harassing telephone calls complaint at 1901 St. Mary Avenue. At that address, Respondent met with William Clark, who informed Respondent that Heather Tramuta's public defender had been calling Tramuta, Clark's girlfriend, inappropriately. Respondent spoke with Tramuta by telephone and generated Offense Report ECS01100F030535 (Offense Report 030535). The ECSO uses an integrated computer system called Smart Cops, produced by CTS Systems. The system includes several integrated database modules, including Offense Report, Master Name Index, Jail, Arrests, Evidence, and Case Management. An officer initiates an offense report by calling from the field to a Report Taker at the sheriff’s office, who inputs the information provided to him or her into the Offense Report module. Information is provided according to the questions in the program, starting with entering the type of report and location, and then filling in the names of the people involved, as well as any property at issue. The officer then provides a narrative for the report. The Report Taker inputs the information given, sometimes in shorthand form. He or she then goes back and “cleans it up,” correcting the spelling and grammatical errors, and then forwards the report to the Senior Report Taker, who reviews it and points out any additional errors. When all corrections are completed, the Senior Report Taker “finishes” the report and forwards it to the supervising officer for review. The supervising officer has a filter on his or her computer that indicates the different types of items to be tracked. For example, yellow indicates a pending report that has been approved, but officers are to follow up on the initial report. Purple means there is a warrant affidavit. Gray is a report still being corrected by the Report Takers. White is a report that is ready for the supervising officer’s approval. The Offense Report module is integrated with other modules in the Smart Cop system. For example, every name listed in an offense report is also listed in a Master Name Index (MNI). If someone knew the name of an individual involved in an incident but not the Offense Report number, they could access the Offense Report by accessing the MNI and querying that person’s name. The MNI will show every report in which that person has been involved, whether as a suspect, a victim, or a witness. Officers frequently access the MNI when preparing Offense Reports to obtain information on the individuals involved in the report they are initiating. The Offense Reports and MNI modules of Smart Cop are available to nearly all ECSO employees; other modules are available based on need. The State Attorney’s Office and Pensacola Police Department, as well as other law enforcement agencies throughout the region, have access to the information in the program through a module called Data Share. To access information through Data Share, agencies use a web portal hosted through the secure criminal justice information system from FDLE, and use that interface to log on and pull information from the database in a web format. However, it is not possible for someone to use Data Share to actually print an ECSO report in the same format that ECSO does. Smart Cops also has a report called a transaction log report. The transaction log report is a user-interfaced front- end report that identifies whenever someone has interfaced with the offense application in some way. A similar report can be run for accesses to the MNI. On October 21, 2011, Respondent accessed the Master Name Index Record of Heather Tramuta at 12:32 p.m. and 12:37 p.m. On October 21, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., Respondent contacted Report Taker Lori Trilone to initiate Offense Report 030535, which resulted in a logged access for Offense Report 030535. Because of the nature of the report, Respondent also contacted his supervisor, Sergeant Lisa Dixon, to advise her of the report he was initiating. Sergeant Dixon, in turn, alerted people in her chain of command that a report of a somewhat sensitive nature was coming through the system. On October 21, 2011, between 3:32 p.m. and 3:34 p.m., Report Taker Lori Trilone accessed the MNI record for Heather Tramuta eight times. These accesses occurred while Respondent was calling in the Offense Report 030535 to Trilone. On October 21, 2011, between 3:31 and 3:34 p.m., Sergeant Lisa Dixon, Respondent’s supervisor, accessed the MNI record of William Clark four times. These accesses were related to a separate inquiry by Mr. Clark that Lieutenant Joye, Sergeant Dixon’s supervisor, had directed her to handle, and were unrelated to Offense Report 030535. According to event logs for Offense Report 030535, Report Taker Lori Trilone worked on completing Offense Report 030535 on October 21, 2011, between 3:30 p.m. and 4:11 p.m. On October 21, 2011, Offense Report 030535 also was accessed through ECSO's computer program as follows: at 3:31 p.m. by Report Taker Darilyn Miller; at 3:55 p.m. by Detention Deputy Randall Bradshaw; at 4:13 p.m. by Sergeant Lisa Dixon; at 4:22 p.m. by Commander Ricky Shelby; at 4:55 p.m. and 5:53 p.m. by Sergeant Lisa Dixon; at 6:02 p.m. and 6:04 p.m. by Sergeant Alan Miller; and at 8:12 p.m. through 8:20 p.m. by Senior Report Taker Lori Scott as she updated and finished the report. Lori Scott marked Offense Report 030535 as finished at 8:20 p.m. on October 21, 2011. On October 22, 2011, Respondent accessed the MNI record of Heather Tramuta at 6:50 a.m. and 6:52 a.m. There were no other recorded accesses to the MNI records of Heather Tramuta or William Clark on October 21 or 22. Sergeant Lisa Dixon accessed and approved Offense Report 030535 on October 22, 2011, at 6:55 a.m. On approximately October 28, 2011, Offense Report 030535 was posted online on the website LEOAffairs.com. At that time, it was still confidential criminal justice information, as the matter remained under investigation at the time of the report's disclosure. Documents can be printed from Smart Cop in two formats. The older, “Legacy” format is text-based and contains no graphics. The newer “CTS” format is the default format and is windows-based, with different fonts and graphics, such as the sheriff’s star. There is conflict in the testimony as to whether a person could print an offense report in both formats in October 2011, when pulling the offense report from the MNI module. Regardless, the copy of Offense Report 030535 posted online was in the newer, CTS format. Sergeant Lisa Dixon saw Offense Report 030535 on LEOAffairs. She then notified her supervisor, Lieutenant Joye, of the posting. Lieutenant Scott Allday was directed by his Commander, Darlene Dickey, to see if he could find out how the post was released. Lieutenant Allday narrowed his “window” for purposes of determining accesses to Offense Report 030535 based on the text in the version that was posted. He determined that the posted version was the same as the version approved by Sergeant Dixon, except that there was no supervisor’s signature on the posted version: that portion of the report was circled but left blank. That window starts at 8:20 p.m. on October 21, when the report was finished by Lori Scott, and ends at 6:55 a.m. on October 22, when Sergeant Dixon approved it. Lieutenant Allday testified that he did not investigate past October 22, 2011, once he narrowed the window to the period described above. Lieutenant Allday’s decision to look only at this period of time is based on the text of the posted copy of the Offense Report 030535, and the lack of a supervisor’s signature. However, the quality of the posted copy is very poor. When asked whether the supervisor’s signature could have been whited out, no witness could refute that possibility. While it is not clear, the possibility that the signature was in fact whited out exists. If so, then it is possible that the window of time in which the document could have been accessed would widen to up to and include October 28, 2011. Lieutenant Allday spoke to Sergeant Dixon, Commander Shelby, Colonel Hardy, Lori Trilone, Lori Scott, Linda Aiken, Kelly Richards (an attorney), reporter Katie McFarland, Cheryl Gooden, and perhaps some others in the course of his investigation. Only one person told him that he or she had printed a copy of the report; none indicated they had disclosed the report to anyone. Colonel Hardy had printed a copy of the report, but he printed his copy on October 24, and his copy was printed in Legacy format as opposed to the CTS format posted online. When Lieutenant Allday asked Colonel Hardy about the report, the printed copy in Legacy format was still on his desk. Once an offense report is downloaded and printed, it can be copied and the date and time those copies were printed would not be known. Moreover, while the audit logs track accesses to the different components, they do not necessarily track saves. Someone could access the document, view it and save it to a thumb drive, and later print from the thumb drive. Only the access and view would be recorded on an audit log. Lieutenant Allday contacted the person in charge of LEOAffairs to see if he could provide the IP address of the site that uploaded the information to the website, and was unable to obtain that information. Respondent was interviewed during the investigation and admitted that he had printed a copy of Offense Report 030535, but denied providing it to anyone or posting it online. He indicated that he had shredded the report. Printing a report is not against ECSO policy. Respondent was not asked in the Internal Affairs’ interview whether he knew how to upload a document on a website. Respondent credibly denies knowing how to do so. Lieutenant Allday stated at hearing that he is familiar with Respondent’s computer skills, and would be surprised if Respondent knew how to upload a document to an online forum. No witnesses with whom Lieutenant Allday spoke told him that Respondent had given them a copy of the offense report. Consistent with his interview during the internal affairs investigation, Respondent testified credibly that he routinely printed copies of offense reports he has filed so that he had them for reference. He kept them in milk carton crates in the trunk of his patrol car. In January 2012, Respondent went on stress leave. Before turning in his patrol car, he removed all of his personal belongings, and shredded all of the copies of offense reports in the trunk of his car. Offense Report 030535 was one of many, possibly a few hundred, offense reports shredded at that time. Respondent was not aware of the internal affairs investigation and was not interviewed until after he shredded the documents and went on stress leave. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is one of a few people who both accessed and printed Offense Report 030535. However, there is no real evidence to support the allegation that Respondent released the report to anyone or that Respondent posted the report online, or that Respondent lied during his internal affairs interview.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether William Jeffery Mishko's application for qualification as general lines agent should be denied for the reasons stated in the letter of denial: nolo contendere plea to a felony failure to reveal that plea on the application, based on the provisions of subsections 626.611(1)(2) and (7) F.S. and subsection 626.621(8) F.S.
Findings Of Fact William Jeffery Mishko, 1649 Algonquin Trace, Maitland, Florida, submitted his application, dated December 26, 1986, to the Department of Insurance, seeking qualification to take the examination for licensure as a general lines agent or solicitor. At the time that he filled out the application he was attending an insurance school, Hilda Tucker School, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It was the first day of class and the students were told to get their applications in for the examination. He hurriedly completed the form and mailed it. A series of questions on the form address criminal history of the applicant. Those questions and Mishko's responses are: 8. Have you ever been charged with a felony? Yes if YES give date(s): 5/23/84 What was the crime? controlled Stubstnce[sic] Where and when were you charged? Winter Springs C.C. Tuskawilla Did you plead guilty or nolo contendere? No Were you convicted? No Was adjudication withheld? x Please provide a brief description of the nature of the offense charged. [writing struck through] controlled substance If there has been more than one such felony charge, provide an explanation to each charge on an attachment. Certified copies of the information or indictment and Final Adjudication for each charge is required. ---No Mishko testified that he started to explain the whole story on 8.(f), but there was insufficient space. He did not attach an additional sheet and did not attach a copy of the court documents as they were not available to him at the time. Later, the agency returned his application to him with the incomplete items circled. The question at 8.(c) was circled, as well as others relating to residence and employment in the past five years. Mishko then went to the Seminole County courthouse, obtained the certified copies and sent them to the agency. The court records reveal that on January 13, 1986, in case no. 85-999 CFC, in circuit Court of Seminole county, William Jeffery Mishko entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance. Adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation for three years. Mishko had been arrested on May 23, 1985, with two friends. He said that he was at work at the golf and country club and two friends came to see him with a small amount of cocaine. The police found them in the golf cart shed and arrested them for possession of cocaine and paraphernalia. The information, dated August 12, 1985, alleges a violation of section 893.13 F.S.. Mishko attributes the errors in the answers on the form itself to his haste to get the application filed so he could take the examination as soon as he finished the course in Ft. Lauderdale. When he followed up the application with the certified court records, he did not amend the application form with the accurate date of arrest or with the correct answer to 8.(c).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a final order denying William Jeffery Mishko's application based upon subsection 626.621(8) F.S. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1254 The following constitute my specific rulings on the parties proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs #1 and #2. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in paragraphs #3 and #4. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as irrelevant. See paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. 7-8. Adopted in paragraph #5. 9-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph #4. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Gerald Rutberg Esquire Post Office Box 977 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Rainell Y. McDonald, Esquire Richard W. Thornburg, Esquire Department of Insurance Room 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, committed the various acts of misconduct described in the Amended Administrative Complaint, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether and what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying law enforcement officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on March 12, 2003, and issued certificate number 229917. Respondent resided in Riviera Beach, Florida, for a portion of his childhood. During this time, he developed a friendship with Frederick Maurice Dean ("Dean"). He was also acquainted with Hasani Thomas ("Thomas"), although not as closely as with Dean. Respondent and Dean spent time together on a daily basis and their relationship continued as their lives took divergent routes. After graduating from high school, Respondent attended college out of state and then returned to Riviera Beach and earned his A.S. degree at the local community college. Respondent continued with his studies at Florida Atlantic University. While working for the City of Riviera Beach in a civilian capacity, Respondent remained personally close with Dean and attempted to help Dean obtain employment. While enrolled at the local policy academy, on September 3, 2001, Respondent was hired by the Riviera Beach Police Department ("RBPD"). Respondent's initial assignment with RBPD was to the road patrol. The intersection of 33rd Street and Old Dixie Highway, the location of the Worldwide Grocery Store ("Worldwide"), was within his area of patrol. In 2003, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ("ATF"), began an operation entitled "Operation Worldwide." The purpose of Operation Worldwide was to eradicate a gang or group of individuals involved in various crimes including murder, drug trafficking, and robbery. The targets were believed to be congregating around, and conducting their activities, in part, from, Worldwide. As part of the plan, the FBI utilized confidential informants to purchase drugs from the targeted group. Additionally, Operation Worldwide sought to conduct surveillance by placing video cameras in covert positions. Initially, one camera, which was not visibly apparent, was installed on a pole in a position to observe the activities at Worldwide. This installation proved ineffective, as it was vandalized with spray paint after the second day of operation. In response, a second video camera was installed in the same capacity at a greater distance from the Worldwide; however, that camera similarly proved ineffective as the location was apparently disclosed or discovered by the criminal subjects. Operation Worldwide concluded in 2005 when a grand jury issued federal indictments and arrest warrants for multiple targets of the operation. Three particular targets and their respective post-arrest statements are pertinent to the instant action, and are addressed seriatim. On May 12, 2005, Hasani Thomas, a previously convicted felon, was federally indicated on distributing a Schedule II controlled substance, and having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, knowingly possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce. A warrant was issued and he was arrested by U.S. Marshals on August 11, 2005. Post-arrest, Thomas, cooperating with law enforcement, made several allegations concerning Respondent. He provided that Respondent and Dean were close friends. Dean had advised Thomas that he was wanted based on information obtained from Respondent. Thomas also alleged that Respondent had disclosed the location of the surveillance cameras at Worldwide to Thomas. Dean, Respondent's friend and a previously convicted felon, was federally indicted on two counts of distribution of crack cocaine and a warrant was issued for his arrest on May 12, 2005. Dean was arrested by U.S. Marshals on August 14, 2005. The day following his arrest, Dean was interviewed by FBI Special Agent Steven Burdelski. Prior to the interview, Dean was informed of why he was being interviewed and the federal charges he was facing. Post-Miranda, Dean admitted to being a seller of drugs, including cocaine, and that he made his living by selling drugs. He further admitted to selling crack cocaine at Worldwide and gave the name of the individual who supplied him with his drugs. Dean was then told by his interviewer that agents were aware he was friends with Respondent and that they wanted to learn what Dean knew about Respondent and specifically what Dean knew about any criminal activity in which Respondent may be involved. Dean subsequently provided numerous allegations concerning Respondent. Specifically, Dean contended that Respondent had encountered Dean at the Palm Beach Mall approximately three months earlier and advised Dean that federal law enforcement officers were looking for him, that they were going to give him "a lot of time," and that he needed to lay low. Dean further advised that Respondent would advise Dean and other drug dealers at Worldwide if law enforcement was planning an operation, the type of vehicles being utilized by law enforcement, and that a camera was observing their activity at Worldwide. Additionally, Dean advised that on several occasions Respondent had provided drugs to Dean in return for cash. Based upon the information received, on August 15 and 16, 2005, several controlled recorded phone calls were attempted and completed by and between Dean and Respondent. During the course of one of the recorded calls, Dean inquired as to whether "his picture" was up at the police station. Respondent advised Dean that he had not seen his picture and that he had not heard anything specifically about Dean. Dean and Respondent further discussed that law enforcement had "busted" Thomas and that law enforcement was serious. Dean stated that Respondent had warned Dean and that he was laying low. The conversation turned to the topic of cameras at Worldwide. Dean asked Respondent whether there was a camera installed at Worldwide. Respondent initially responded that he did not know and that the owner of the store, Mike, was doing some rebuilding at the store. Dean then asked again if the camera was still up at the store. Respondent stated, "You know those mother fuckers got everything over there boy." To which Dean replied, "I know bitch people got to be careful over there." Respondent further stated that, "They got everything, they got everything and your momma over there boy." When asked by Dean if law enforcement had taken down the big camera, Respondent advised that he did not know, but they were "cleaning up the neighborhood." Finally, Dean requested Respondent to use his connections and determine whether there were pending charges against Dean. Respondent unequivocally advised Dean that he could not do so as he was not President Bush. Adrian Henderson, a convicted felon, was arrested in 2006 on felony narcotics charges. Henderson, in a federal proffer statement, alleged that Respondent advised individuals at Worldwide concerning the location of the cameras and, upon request, would run Henderson and Dean's name through "the system" to determine if there were outstanding warrants. Thomas, Dean, and Henderson in subsequent statements made numerous allegations concerning Respondent's assistance, participation, and acquiescence to the drug activities being conducted at Worldwide.3/ Those allegations included, but are not limited to, the following: allowing Thomas to conduct cocaine transactions in Respondent's presence; advising the details of surveillance camera placement; Respondent's encountering Thomas and advising him that U.S. Marshalls had a picture (warrant) concerning Thomas and Dean, but failing to arrest; Respondent's providing Dean crack cocaine and marijuana for cash; failing to arrest individuals close to Worldwide; Respondent's advising when the drug task force was operating in the area; Respondent's advising of the make and model of surveillance vehicles; Respondent's checking for warrants and advising if a warrant existed, but not arresting the individual. After obtaining the initial 2005 post-arrest statements from Thomas and Dean, FBI Agent Steven Burdelski provided the information concerning Respondent's alleged involvement to RBPD for an internal investigation. Additionally, the information was reviewed with the United States Attorney's Office. The United States Attorney's Office determined that it would not proceed with criminal prosecution of Respondent. Captain John Mammino was involved with the internal affairs investigation of Respondent. In addition to reviewing the initial statements, in 2006, he conducted interviews of Dean, Thomas, Henderson. In 2009, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office formed a public integrity unit. Captain Mammino desired that State Attorney's Office review the case concerning Respondent, and, therefore, conducted another round of interviews with Thomas, Dean, and Henderson. The entirety of the information was provided to the State Attorney's Office, and they also declined to prosecute Respondent. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted in an effort to corroborate the allegations that Respondent provided warrant information to Dean. The Florida Crime Information Center ("FCIC") and the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") databases are used for obtaining criminal history information. FCIC is the central repository for all criminal histories within Florida. Users in Florida must become trained and certified through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FLDE") instructors. Respondent was certified to access FCIC/NCIC on July 1, 2003. Warrant information is placed into the FCIC/NCIC database by law enforcement agencies, and such information is not available to the public. The FCIC/NCIC database is not to be used for any non law-enforcement related purpose. A certified user may access FCIC by logging in with an individual password and user name. A computer database, the Transaction Archive Reporting ("TAR") database, keeps a record of all queries within the FCIC system. FDLE maintains the TAR system, and same may be searched to produce records of an individual's queries or transactions. The reports generated from such a search are called TAR reports. A search was conducted of the TAR database for any FCIC queries concerning Dean. A review of the TAR reports generated from the search revealed that Respondent accessed FCIC and manually inputted the first name, middle name, last name, date of birth, sex, and Florida Driver's License number of Dean on three occasions: October 7, 2003, October 17, 2003, and November 30, 2003. These searches would have revealed whether Dean had any outstanding warrants. Dean had no warrants outstanding on the above-referenced dates. On June 30, 2010, over five years subsequent to the above-referenced arrests, Respondent participated in a sworn interview with RBPD Internal Affairs. During this interview, Respondent was asked whether he ever ran Dean's name through the system. Respondent initially replied, "No. I never ran Freddie (Dean) through." After being advised, for the first time, of the results of the TAR reports, he stated that he did not remember running Dean's name: Officer Lewis: We pulled records from the FDLE database. It showed records showing on October 7th, 2003 at 4:03 p.m., that you ran Freddie Dean for warrants through FDLE's database. Respondent: I ran them or Tina Hall ran them? Officer Lewis: It actually listed your name. Respondent: I must have made an arrest on him for possession of marijuana. Officer Lewis: There was another one ten days later at 9:53 for the same person, Frederick Dean. Do you recall that? Respondent: No, sir. Officer Lewis: On November 30th, 2003 at 1:15 p.m. the same ran through the system, Frederick Dean for warrants. Do you remember that? Respondent: No, sir. Additionally, during the internal affairs interview, Respondent advised that he used certain "scare tactics" to prevent or disperse criminal activity. He would advise individuals that the "jump-out boys" (narcotics tactical unit) were coming or advise that cameras were everywhere to clear the area. RBPD Officers Derrick Jackson, Gary Wilson, and John Toombs confirmed the use of such tactics. These officers credibly testified that, due to a shortage of manpower, at times they would implement certain techniques to encourage known narcotics dealers to leave an area of the street. These techniques varied from simply sitting in the patrol car in close proximity, advising subjects to leave, advising subjects they would be arrested, approaching the subjects, and suggesting the tactical unit was out. During the June 30, 2010, internal affairs interview, Respondent was also asked about the allegation that Respondent encountered Dean at the mall after the federal warrant had been issued for his arrest. The pertinent dialogue is set forth as follows: Officer Lewis: That is when you were at the mall, when you saw him when he was wanted? You knew that he was wanted, but you didn't call. And you stated that was because you didn't know the right thing to do at the time? Officer Gordon: Yes. Plus the safety of my son too. And the way he was acting, really, really bothered me. Officer Lewis: How was he acting? Officer Gordon: He smelled of--he reeked of marijuana and alcohol. You could smell it coming from him. His eyes were bloodshot and he was just, "I ain't trying to go back to jail--I ain't going back to jail." Is pretty much what he said. . . . Officer Gordon: . . . He (Dean) was looking to see if I was going to pick up my phone and call-- Freddie Dean--the guy you are looking for-- is in the mall right now, blah blah blah. . . . Officer Lewis: He wanted to see if you would dime him out? Officer Gordon: Exactly. Officer Lewis: But you didn't? Officer Gordon: Unh-uh (indicating negative). At the final hearing, Respondent initially testified that he did not know a warrant was active for Dean when he encountered Dean at the mall. Respondent conceded, however, after listening to the recorded internal affairs interview, that he was aware of a warrant for Dean during the mall incident. The undersigned finds that the post-arrest statements of convicted felons Dean, Thomas, and Henderson, given the totality of circumstances, lack sufficient credibility to support a finding of fact that Respondent directly participated in or condoned illegal drug activity. Similarly, the undersigned finds the post-arrest statements of convicted felons Dean, Thomas, and Henderson, given the totality of circumstances, lack sufficient credibility to support a finding of fact that Respondent advised said individuals or other potential criminal targets of the placement of the Operation Worldwide surveillance cameras. The undersigned further finds that the post-arrest statements of convicted felons Dean, Thomas, and Henderson, given the totality of circumstances, lack sufficient credibility to support a finding of fact that Respondent advised the criminal targets of when and where narcotics operations were to occur. Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent queried Dean's name through FCIC and or NCIC on October 7, 2003, October 17, 2003, and November 30, 2003. Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent encountered Dean after the federal warrant was issued for Dean. At the time of the meeting, Respondent was aware of the warrant, and took no action to notify any members of the law enforcement community of Dean's recent location.
Recommendation Based on 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 dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent determined that Petitioner is not qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman due to Petitioner's criminal record and failure to disclose criminal violations. On May 25, 1990, Petitioner was charged by the Metro Dade Police Department with possession of cocaine, resisting arrest with violence, and battery on a police officer. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for 12 months. Petitioner's probation was terminated after six months for good behavior. Petitioner failed to disclose on his application for licensure that he had previously entered a plea of nolo contendere with respect to other criminal charges in 1980 and 1982. On April 2, 1980, Petitioner was charged by the Metro Dade Police Department with auto theft and petty larceny. On May 2, 1982, Petitioner was charged by the Alachua County Sheriff's Office with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and failure to display a driver's license. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of auto theft, petty larceny, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and failure to display a driver's license. Petitioner's failure to disclose his prior criminal record ignored the express terms of his application for licensure. Line seven in the application requested Petitioner to disclose any crime for which Petitioner ever entered a plea of nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld. Petitioner disclosed the criminal case in 1990 but failed to disclose the criminal cases in 1980 and 1982. Petitioner noted next to the item disclosed by him that adjudication was withheld. Petitioner indicated on his application next to his disclosure of the 1990 criminal charges that adjudication was withheld. When asked during the formal hearing why he did not disclose the 1980 and 1982 criminal charges, Petitioner said he thought he did not have to disclose criminal charges for which adjudication was withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 19th day of June 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Francisco Luis Inguanzo (Petitioner), is entitled to have his application for licensure approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Francisco Luis Inguanzo, is an applicant for licensure as a resident public all lines insurance adjuster. He filed an application with the Respondent on or about September 20, 2004. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensees and applicants for licensure such as the Petitioner. As such, the Respondent must interpret and administer the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004). The application for licensure includes several questions that applicants must complete. More specifically, applicants must disclose law enforcement records and, to that end, the Department poses the following question: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Yes/No The response the Petitioner provided to the foregoing question was in the negative (that is “No”). When the Department reviewed the Petitioner’s criminal history, however, it was discovered that the Petitioner was arrested and pled guilty to carrying a concealed firearm, a third-degree felony. The Petitioner did not accurately disclose the foregoing arrest and conviction Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide a credible explanation for why he failed to accurately answer the application question. The criminal charges against this Petitioner were resolved on September 10, 2002. After pleading guilty, the Petitioner was placed on one-year probation with various terms to be completed. The Petitioner successfully completed the terms of his probation on May 30, 2003. At the time he filed the application in the instant matter, the Petitioner knew or should have known that he had been charged with a serious crime, that he had resolved the criminal case, and that he was no longer on probation. The Petitioner did not fully disclose his criminal record to the Department. The Department’s application form makes it clear that the applicant’s criminal history must be disclosed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner’s application for licensure. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 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 30th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julio R. Ferrer-Roo, Esquire Julio R. Ferrer Roo, P.A. 8360 West Flagler Street, Suite 203A Miami, Florida 33144
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended action to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Background Petitioner is a 41-year-old male residing in Gainesville, Florida. For the last four months Petitioner has been employed by Plane Techs, where he has been contracted out to Haeco Aviation for repair of interior aviation mechanics. Petitioner wishes to become employed by Successful Living II, an Agency provider which operates residential treatment group homes serving people with both moderate and severe behavioral disabilities. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust. Specifically, the Agency’s mission includes serving and protecting vulnerable populations, including children and adults with developmental disabilities. Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner’s record contains two felony offenses which automatically disqualify him from employment in any position of special trust with children or vulnerable adults. The first offense is the armed robbery of an Arby’s restaurant in Lake City, Florida, in May 1998. Petitioner conspired with his two male cousins, then employees of the subject Arby’s, to rob the restaurant. A first attempt was scrapped due to the number of customers in the restaurant, but Petitioner returned and finished the job just prior to closing. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of both armed robbery and burglary of an occupied structure. He was sentenced to 32 months in prison, followed by eight months of probation. In the second offense the same month as the first, Petitioner and the same two cousins robbed a man in the parking lot of a hotel in Gainesville. The trio held up the man at gunpoint and deprived him of a duffle bag containing a computer and other valuables, as well as his wallet containing cash and credit cards. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to 64 months in prison, to be served concurrently with the sentence from the first offense. Petitioner was 22-years old at the time of the disqualifying offenses. Petitioner served 64 months (approximately five years) in a state correctional facility and eight months’ probation. The Department of Corrections terminated his supervision on December 13, 2010. At hearing, Petitioner denied that he and his co- conspirators used a gun during the Arby’s robbery. He failed to appreciate that adjudication of the offense had established a weapon was utilized. At hearing, Petitioner downplayed his involvement in the robbery of the man in the hotel parking lot. Petitioner insisted that he had no idea his cousin was going to rob the man until the robbery was underway. However, Petitioner admitted that he participated in the robbery by ordering the victim to kick over his duffle bag, while his cousin threatened the victim at gunpoint. Subsequent Non-Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner’s background screening revealed several non- disqualifying offenses subsequent to Petitioner’s incarceration.1/ Respondent alleges Petitioner had three probation violations: (1) driving with a suspended license on October 14, 1998; (2) an unspecified violation on March 23, 2004; and (3) failure to appear on May 26, 2004.2/ No court records concerning these alleged probation violations were offered in evidence. According to a letter from the Columbia County Clerk’s office, no records of the alleged violations could be located. Respondent submitted no evidence of the source of information for the alleged probation violations. The record does contain an Affidavit of Probation Violation dated March 3, 2004, in which Probation Officer Aaron Robert attested to Petitioner’s violation of a condition of his probation requiring Petitioner to complete 100 hours of community service within one year of his release from prison. The affidavit states that, as of that date, Petitioner had submitted proof of completion of only 28 hours. The record also contains an Order of Modification of Probation entered on July 8, 2004, finding Petitioner admitted to the violation, was found in violation, and adjudicated guilty of the violation. However, the same terms of probation were reinstated. The record supports a finding that Petitioner is guilty of only one probation violation subsequent to commitment of the disqualifying offenses. 20. (DWLS) in Petitioner was cited for driving with license November and December 2006; October 2009; and suspended February, July, and August 2011. 21. With regard to the November and December 2006 DWLS adjudications, Petitioner’s license had been suspended for lack of insurance. Petitioner claimed not to have known his license had been suspended when he was first stopped in November 2006. For the November 2006 DWLS charge, Petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced to serve 12 months’ probation and ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees. Columbia County Court Judge Tom Coleman presided over Petitioner’s case, and terminated Petitioner’s probation on January 31, 2008, finding Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. Petitioner likewise plead guilty to the December 2006 DWLS charge, was placed on 12 months’ probation, and ordered by Judge Coleman to complete 50 hours of community service and produce a valid driver’s license within 10 months. Judge Coleman allowed the probation to run concurrent with the November sentence. Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation on January 31, 2008, finding Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. On October 4, 2008, Petitioner was cited for violating a municipal open container ordinance, and ordered to appear in Columbia County Court on October 30, 2008. Although the citation was admitted in evidence, no court record of the violation was produced in response to Petitioner’s records request. Again in 2009, Petitioner’s automobile insurance was canceled for nonpayment, leading to the suspension of his driver’s license. On October 27, 2009, Petitioner was again charged with DWLS and ordered to appear in county court on November 10, 2009. On March 11, 2010,3/ Petitioner was ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $373.50 by September 9, 2010, or return to court on that date. On November 16, 2010, Petitioner appeared before Judge Coleman on the October 27, 2009 DWLS charge. Judge Coleman withheld adjudication and again sentenced Petitioner to 12 months’ probation and payment of court costs (of which $343.50 was remaining from the partial payment plan), allowing for early termination within six months, if all conditions were met. In 2011, Petitioner became employed at Target and assumed the risk of driving to and from work without a valid license in order to earn an income. Petitioner was stopped by police three separate times that year and cited for driving with a suspended license.4/ During the February 2011 traffic stop, Petitioner falsely identified himself as his cousin, and gave his cousin’s address, in an effort to avoid another citation. However, the police officer discovered Petitioner’s Target employee badge which revealed his correct identity. Petitioner was charged with both giving a false name to law enforcement (Count I) and DWLS (Count II). On March 29, 2011, Judge Coleman entered an order withholding adjudication on Count I, but adjudicating Petitioner guilty on Count II. As to Count I, Judge Coleman sentenced Petitioner to 12 months’ probation and ordered Petitioner to write a letter of apology to the arresting officer, pay court costs and fees, complete 15 community service hours per month until Petitioner either became employed or completed 150 hours, and produce a valid driver’s license within 10 months. As to Count II, Petitioner was also sentenced to 12 months’ probation to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I. Unfortunately for Petitioner, the March 29, 2011, adjudication constituted a violation of the probation order entered on September 16, 2010. On January 24, 2012, Judge Coleman entered a new judgement on the 2009 DWLS violation, sentencing Petitioner to 20 days in county jail, but allowing him to serve the sentence in consecutive weekly installments of 48 hours from 5 a.m. Sundays to 5 a.m. Tuesdays. On June 5, 2012, Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation under the September 16, 2010, judgement as Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. On April 30, 2013, Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation under the March 29, 2011, judgement as Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. For Petitioner’s subsequent July 12, 2011, DWLS charge, and August 27, 2011, DWLS charge, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two consecutive jail terms of 30 days, probation of 12 months, and ordered to pay court costs and fees. Judge Coleman allowed Petitioner to serve the jail time on subsequently designated weekends. Petitioner was released from probation on those charges on January 29 and March 31, 2015, respectively. Petitioner has subsequently obtained a restricted license which allows him to drive to and from work, as well as to pick up his children from school and other activities. Subsequent Employment History Petitioner has had varied employment since his release from prison. He worked for Hunter Panels in Lake City on the insulation assembly line for approximately two years, then Accurate Car Care as Assistant Manager of the detail shop for another year. Petitioner’s last job in Lake City was with Target, where he was terminated for tardiness. After his relocation to Gainesville, Petitioner worked for the Florida Farm Bureau in maintenance before becoming employed by Plane Techs. Petitioner anticipates being laid off by Plane Techs at the conclusion of the current contract with Haeco, due to lack of contract opportunities. In the summer of 2014, Petitioner was certified as a basketball referee by the Mid-Florida Officials’ Association. Petitioner officiates basketball games three to four times a week during basketball season, as well as post-season tournaments. Petitioner had to undergo background screening with Mid-Florida Officials’ Association, and was originally denied certification due to his criminal record. However, the association allowed him to proceed with certification following an exemption review. Subsequent Personal History Petitioner was divorced in late 2015. Petitioner has joint custody of his five children, who reside with him every other weekend, portions of each summer, and certain holidays. For the last ten years, Petitioner has volunteered as a football coach in Lake City (commuting from Gainesville) to remain involved in his son’s life. Additionally, Petitioner has volunteered as a coach for Columbia County little league football for approximately four years. In this capacity, he has worked with children ages five, six, and seven. Petitioner has completed some of his required community service by sharing his experiences with high school students, and encouraging them to make better life choices. Petitioner remarried on November 12, 2016. The couple met approximately four and a half years earlier. Petitioner revealed his criminal history to his new wife on their third date, approximately three years earlier. Petitioner met Diyonne McGraw a little over two years ago through her husband, who is also a volunteer football coach. Ms. McGraw became more familiar with Petitioner through his wife, who is Ms. McGraw’s hairdresser. Ms. McGraw owns Successful Living II, under which she operates three group homes and is working to license a fourth. She specializes in “intensive behavior focus,” meaning she serves clients with mental health issues, sexual issues, and physical and verbal aggression, some of whom have dual and triple diagnoses, and many of whom were recently released from incarceration. Ms. McGraw is a former probation officer. She testified, credibly, that, based on her observation of Petitioner’s interaction with her own children, as well as many other children involved in recreational sports, he has the patience to effectively deal with her clients. Further, she testified that Petitioner has demonstrated a commitment to her agency and a passion for the work it entails. Petitioner’s Exemption Request In his exemption request, in response to the question regarding the “degree of harm to victim or property (permanent or temporary), damage, or injuries,” Petitioner answered, “[n]one.” In response to the question regarding any stressors in his life at the time of the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner also stated, “[n]one.” Petitioner achieved a Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) while incarcerated. Petitioner reported no further educational pursuits. In his exemption request, Petitioner accepted responsibility for “poor and wrong decision[s] [he] chose early in [his] life.” He admitted that he is embarrassed by his charges, but is not ashamed to talk about his history and advise young people that such mistakes can change the course of your life. Petitioner’s request also demonstrates a dedication to providing life lessons for his children and preventing them from going down the path he chose. In the employment history section, Petitioner listed only his employment with Target in Lake City. Petitioner’s exemption request included two personal reference letters--one from his wife, then Dawn Teasley, and one from Matthew Dillard, a teacher at Lake City Middle School in Columbia County. The letter from Petitioner’s wife described Petitioner as “reliable, honest and responsible” both in his capacity as maintenance and groundskeeper for her salon and as a head coach for her nephew’s football team in Lake City. She also commented on Petitioner’s “ability, patience and genuine concern and care for youth” and his ability to “bring out the very best of every youth he coaches regardless of their skill set of level.” His wife further described Petitioner as an “enthusiastic leader,” as well as “reliable, honest and responsible.” Mr. Dillard’s letter was brief. In the letter, he stated that he has known Petitioner for ten years, has played recreational basketball with Petitioner, and has worked with Petitioner at a local community center volunteering with youth. He noted that he “has never seen [Petitioner] become overwhelmed by a given task or assignment.” Along with his exemption application, Petitioner also submitted a personal letter from Judge Coleman. Petitioner received the unsolicited letter in April 2015 following Petitioner’s release from court supervision. In the letter, Judge Coleman acknowledged that he “cannot remember writing a letter like this before” but wanted to congratulate Petitioner. The letter reads, as follows: As you know, I made several decisions to give you additional time and chances to succeed despite the opposition of others. I had faith in you because I saw something in you - a determination and focus. By your actions you have justified my faith in you and I admire you for that. I am very proud of you and I know that you will go on to accomplish great things with your life. As you know, I see many people daily and I cannot always remember faces, so I request this of you. If you see me somewhere and recognize me, come and see me so I can congratulate you in person. I wish you all the best life has to offer. Keep working hard. Ultimate Facts Many of Petitioner’s recent decisions and pursuits demonstrate a commitment to a life of responsibility to family and community, concern and respect for others, and the importance of steady and reliable work. Petitioner’s volunteerism is commendable, as well as his remarriage and support of his children. Judge Coleman’s letter is evidence of Petitioner’s determination to better himself and to overcome his prior poor decisions. However, many of the facts established about Petitioner are grounds for the Agency to question his fitness to work with the most vulnerable clients. Petitioner’s attempts to downplay his involvement in the 1998 felonies evidence a lack of true remorse for his actions. His willingness to lie to a police officer, as recently as 2011, evidence a lack of respect for law enforcement, and his lack of separation from his cousins, who have been a bad influence in his past, supports the Agency’s uneasiness concerning Petitioner’s future decisions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Petitioner for a Florida real estate broker’s license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an individual residing in the State of Connecticut. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In June 2007, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application to be licensed as a real estate broker in Florida. In his application, Respondent requested mutual recognition of his broker’s license in Connecticut. Petitioner held an active real estate broker’s license in Connecticut for at least 24 months during the preceding five years from the date of his application. Petitioner was first licensed in the State of Connecticut as a real estate salesperson from May 13, 1987 through July 28, 1989. Thereafter, Petitioner held an individual license as a real estate broker in Connecticut from July 28, 1989 through April 30, 1993, and again from June 22, 1993, until his real estate broker’s license with the State of Connecticut expired on March 31, 2006. In addition, Petitioner’s limited-liability company, America’s Home & Communities Real Estate, LLC, was licensed as a broker with the State of Connecticut, with Petitioner as the designated broker, on December 30, 2005. That license was active when Petitioner submitted his application with Respondent in June 2007, and expired, effective March 31, 2008. In his application, Respondent answered “No” to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withholding of adjudication? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. After receiving Petitioner’s application, the Commission ordered a criminal record check from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The results of that check showed that Petitioner had no Florida criminal record history, but the National/FBI Criminal History Record Response (FBI Report) ordered by FDLE as part of that check under Petitioner’s name listed the following information in the following format: ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1968/08/05 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848-R94 CHARGE 1-B OF P CHARGE 2-DC CHARGE 3-WIL DAM TO PRIV PROP ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1972/07/27 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848-R94 NAME USED-PARKER,EDWARD LEON CHARGE 1-INCITING TO RIOT CHARGE 2-ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1974/09/12 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848R94 NAME USED-PARKER, EDWARD L CHARGE 1-LARC #3 ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1975/09/30 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY CASE-4684R94 NAME USED PARKER, EDWARD L CHARGE 1-DC CHARGE 2-POSS NARC CHARGE 3-CARRY GUN W/O PERMIT ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1975/10/23 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848R94 NAME USED-PARKER, EDWARD L CHARGE 1-L III BY POSS ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1975/12/18 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848R94 NAME USED-PARKER, EDWARD L CHARGE 1-LARC IV CHARGE 2-CARRY DANG WPN CHARGE 3-INTERFERING W/POLICE ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1976/01/27 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT HARTFORD (CT0006400) AGENCY CASE-46848R94 NAME USED-PARKER, EDWARD CHARGE 1-INTERF W/PO CHARGE 2-DC * * * ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1977/07/14 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT WEST HARTFORD (CT0015500) AGENCY CASE-0786-77 CHARGE 1-ILL USE OF CREDIT CARD 31 CTS CHARGE 2-CRIM IMPERSONATION 31 CTS CHARGE 3-FORGERY 3RD DEG 31 CTS CHARGE 4-LARC 4TH DEG 31 CTS COURT- CHARGE-ILL USE OF CREDIT CARD 31 CTS SENTENCE- 09/01/77 PG 1YR 9/S ON EA CT 2YRS PROB CHARGE-CRIM IMPERSONATION 31 CTS SENTENCE- NOLLED CHARGE-FORGERY 3RD DEG 31 CTS SENTENCE-NOLLED CHARGE-LARC 4TH DEG 31 CTS SENTENCE-NOLLED ARRESTED OR RECEIVED 1985/11/14 SID- CT00246406 AGENCY-POLICE DEPARTMENT BLOOMFIELD (CT0001100) AGENCY CASE-7206 NAME USED-PARKER, EDWARD L CHARGE 1-ASLT 3RD RECORD UPDATED 2007/12/07 ALL ARREST ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS FBI RECORD ARE BASED ON FINGERPRINT COMPARISONS AND PERTAIN TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. THE USE OF THIS RECORD IS REGULATED BY LAY. IT IS PROVIDED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY AND MAY BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE REQUESTED. The preamble to the above-recited FBI Report provides: THIS RECORD IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING USE AND DISSEMINATION RESTRICTIONS UNDER PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN TITLE 28, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR), SECTION 50.12, BOTH GOVERNMENTAL AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT FINGERPRINTS AND RECEIVE FBI IDENTIFICATION RECORDS MUST NOTIFY THE INDIVIDUALS FINGERPRINTED THAT THE FINGERPRINTS WILL BE USED TO CHECK THE CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS OF THE FBI. IDENTIFICATION RECORDS OBTAINED FROM THE FBI MAY BE USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE REQUESTED AND MAY NOT BE DISSEMINATED OUTSIDE THE RECEIVING DEPARTMENT, RELATED AGENCY OR OTHER AUTHORIZED ENTITY. IF THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD IS USED TO DISQUALIFY AN APPLICANT, THE OFFICIAL MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY FOR LICENSING OR EMPLOYMENT SHALL PROVIDE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE, OR CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FBI IDENTIFICATION RECORD. THE DECIDING OFFICIAL SHOULD NOT DENY THE LICENSE OR EMPLOYMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN AFFORDED A REASONABLE TIME TO CORRECT OR COMPLETE THE INFORMATION, OR HAS DECLINED TO DO SO. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE PRESUMED NOT GUILTY ON ANY CHARGE/ARREST FOR WHICH THERE IS NO FINAL DISPOSITION STATED ON THE RECORD OR OTHERWISE DETERMINED. IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CORRECT THE RECORD AS IT APPEARS IN THE FBI’S CJIS DIVISION RECORDS SYSTEM, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THE PROCEDURES TO CHANGE, CORRECT OR UPDATE THE RECORD ARE SET FORTH IN TITLE 28, CFR, SECTION 16.34. - FBI IDENTIFICATION RECORD – WHEN EXPLANATION OF A CHARGE OR DISPOSITION IS NEEDED, COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE AGENCY THAT FURNISHED THE DATA TO THE FBI. On March 5, 2008, Respondent wrote to Petitioner and asked Petitioner to provide a copy of the arrest reports and the final outcome for each of the arrests detailed in the FBI Report. Of the 9 reported arrests listed under Petitioner’s name on the FBI Report, only one, number 8 from July 14, 1977, indicates that Petitioner was convicted of a crime. According to that report, Petitioner was sentenced on September 1, 1977, for 31 counts of illegal use of a credit card. According to the report, the other charges listed under arrest number 8 (multiple counts for criminal impersonation, forgery, and larceny) were not prosecuted. Petitioner disputes that he was ever arrested on July 14, 1977, or convicted of any of the charges listed in item number 8. In correspondence and in his testimony at the final hearing, Petitioner pointed out that the record for July 14, 1977, is not supported by fingerprints, and further, that he is not white, as indicated in the police records for that arrest. Petitioner also disputes that he was ever incarcerated. Upon his request to obtain court records related to the disputed conviction, Petitioner was advised by the Records Center for the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut that the court records had been destroyed. At the final hearing, Petitioner submitted certified copies of correspondence from Connecticut’s Superior Court’s Record Center as evidence that the records had been destroyed. Nevertheless, in order to clear his name, Petitioner sought a pardon from the State of Connecticut for the listed conviction for illegal use of a credit card, as well as two other matters listed as arrests (apparently, the “interfering with police” charge listed in item number 6 and the “larceny” charge under item number 8) that Petitioner disputed. On June 8, 2009, Petitioner faxed to Respondent correspondence indicating Petitioner’s efforts to obtain records and clear his name. Included in the correspondence were three letters dated February 17, 2009, from Connecticut’s Superior Court Record Center indicating that records from the disputed charges had been destroyed; Petitioner’s letter dated February 18, 2009, to Connecticut’s Board of Pardons & Paroles requesting assistance in getting a pardon for the alleged crimes; and a letter dated June 3, 2009, to Petitioner from Connecticut’s Board of Pardons & Paroles conditionally granting Petitioner a pardon, pending confirmation from several criminal justice agencies that “the records of your conviction(s) have been erased, which takes at least 8 months.” On June 11, 2009, Petitioner sent to Respondent by facsimile three letters of reference which reflect positively upon Petitioner’s character. By letter dated July 17, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application would be considered at Respondent’s meeting scheduled for August 12, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, and that Petitioner should forward any additional letters of recommendation or other supporting documentation no later than July 20, 2009. Petitioner’s application file indicates that Respondent received a positive recommendation for Petitioner on July 23, 2009, from a real estate broker in Connecticut, and that, on July 24, 2009, Petitioner forwarded a letter to Respondent from the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors, Inc., stating that Petitioner “is a member in good standing with the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors® since December 11, 1998,” indicating that Petitioner’s local, state and national dues have been paid, and advising that Petitioner completed a code of ethics course on December 12, 2008. Petitioner appeared, pro se, and gave testimony at the August 12, 2009, meeting where his application was considered. Following that meeting, Respondent entered a Notice of Intent to Deny, which stated a number of grounds for the intent to deny Petitioner’s application. Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Deny recited Key findings of fact 1, 2, 4, and 7, and Key conclusions of law B, C, E and M, as grounds for its proposed denial of Petitioner’s application. Those Key findings and conclusions, as set forth on the Key for License Denials, attached to Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Deny, are as follows: Crimes in Application. Applicant’s criminal record is as revealed in application. Failure to disclose. Applicant’s complete criminal record was not revealed in application. 4. Unpersuasive Testimony. Applicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive. 7. No Showing Rehabilitation. Applicant has not had sufficient time free of government supervision to establish rehabilitation. Failing to demonstrate: honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing, competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181 F.S. Having engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181, F.S. E. Guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction; 475.25(1)(b), 475.181 F.S. M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. In sum, all of Respondent’s reasons to deny Petitioner’s application for a broker’s license are related to a finding that Petitioner was convicted of crimes and failed to disclose them on his application. The evidence, however, does not support the grounds recited in Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Deny. Other than Petitioner’s disputes of, and eventual pardon from, three crimes listed on the pardon obtained on May 27, 2009, there is no evidence that Petitioner was ever convicted of a crime. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he grew up in a rough neighborhood and had negative contacts with law enforcement for a number of years. He apologized for any appearance that he tried to deceive Respondent, but explained that although he had been arrested in the past, he has never been incarcerated. Petitioner further explained that he did not believe that he had a record because of the passage of time. In addition, at the final hearing, Petitioner submitted evidence that he has received a full pardon for the listed (and disputed) conviction for illegal use of a credit card.3/ It has been over 20 years since Petitioner has had any negative contact with law enforcement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was not dishonest in his application to be licensed as a real estate broker in Florida submitted in June 2007, but denying that application, without prejudice, consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On July 12, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a Resident Life including Variable Annuity and Health Insurance Agent with Respondent. Included among the questions on the application was the following: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Petitioner answered "no" in response to the question. The application requires the applicant to consent to the following statement: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). By affixing his electronic signature to the application, Petitioner affirmed that the information set forth therein was true. The evidence establishes that on April 7, 1978, Petitioner was sentenced to the Nassau County Correctional Center for a term of one year after entering a guilty plea to a felony count of Attempted Grand Larceny (Grand Jury Indictment No. 46323, June 24, 1977, Nassau County, New York.) Petitioner entered the Correctional Center to begin serving his sentence on December 15, 1978, and was released on February 28, 1979. Petitioner did not disclose the 1978 conviction on the application for licensure as an insurance agent. After completing a criminal history check, Respondent issued two deficiency letters, dated July 26, 2004, and August 5, 2004, seeking additional information related to Petitioner's background. In response to the deficiency letters, Petitioner submitted additional information and a letter. In the letter and in his testimony at the hearing, Petitioner stated that he misinterpreted the question, and believed that because he was incarcerated for less than one year, the 1978 conviction was responsive to the question. He stated that he did not intend to mislead or deceive Respondent. Respondent issued a Notice of Denial on August 25, 2004. The grounds for the denial was Petitioner's failure to disclose the 1978 conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying the application for licensure filed by Anthony A. Sagnelli and imposing a waiting period to expire on August 26, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 February, 2005.
