Findings Of Fact In May of 1977, petitioner filled out respondent's form DBR 710-L, with the help of Lee Brewer from whom petitioner proposed to buy a bar. Ms. Brewer typed answers to the questions on the form, which petitioner dictated. One of the questions on the form inquired "Have you ever been arrested?" Although petitioner told Ms. Brewer that he had been arrested for traffic offenses, they decided after some discussion to answer the question no. Petitioner signed the form in the place provided, right under the words, "I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury . . . that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge Joint exhibit No. 3. On October 26, 1977, petitioner amended his answer to the question as to arrests by listing six arrests, two of which were for traffic offenses. Joint exhibit No. 2. No other evidence as to petitioner's moral character was adduced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for transfer of a beverage license. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Manuel W. James, Esquire 419 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Frances Bayley, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues in the case arc whether Respondent, on October 22, 1987, unlawfully and intentionally touched or struck Mary Ann Lanning and Denise Lanning and, if so, whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which require that a law enforcement officer have good moral character, and thus failed to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) and (7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent on December 31, 1970. Respondent received Certificate Number GF-1813. At the time of the events in question, Respondent was a trooper employed by the Florida Highway Patrol. On the evening of October 21, 1987, Respondent was at the office where he held a part-time job. At home were Respondent's wife, two young children born of their marriage, and two older daughters born of a prior marriage of Respondent. The two older daughters are Kim, who was then 15 years old, and Chris, who was then 16 years old. Respondent's wife and the two older daughters got into an argument, and the daughters angrily went to a neighbor's home a couple of houses away. The daughters had undergone significant emotional turmoil, largely the result of successive abandonments by their natural mother, who was Respondent's first wife, and then their adoptive mother, who was Respondent's second wife. The neighbor's house was the Lanning residence where Mary Ann Lanning and her daughter Denise lived. Denise was Kim's close friend and had been for several years. Kim and Chris were upset and crying when they arrived at the Lanning's home. Mrs. Lanning and Denise comforted them. In the meantime, Respondent's wife called him at about 6:00 p.m. and informed him of the problem. Respondent was not overly surprised. The two girls had recently been misbehaving, and relations between them and their father had been strained. Respondent and his wife, who were due to go to church that night, agreed, as was customary, that they would drive separately and meet at church. Respondent instructed his wife to lock up the house, which contained valuable personal items, including firearms. When Respondent and his wife returned from church that evening, his daughters were still gone, but a note was attached to the front door. The note informed Respondent that they were okay. The note also began to recite the telephone number at which they could be reached. However, Chris, unknown to Kim, had ripped the number off from the note before posting it on the door. At this point, one of the first of many factual disputes emerges. Although it concerns a matter that is not, in itself, of critical importance, Respondent and Mrs. Lanning advance their varying viewpoints with vehemence. The animosity between Respondent and Mrs. Lanning is incomprehensible as they were barely acquainted prior to the evening in question, and neither of them testified to any prior disagreements. In any event, it has proven impossible to credit the testimony of either of them, when their testimony is in dispute. The excitability of Mrs. Lanning coupled with the impulsiveness and arrogance of Respondent, which probably went a long way toward generating a series of failed communications, also detracted from their credibility as witnesses. Therefore, in the many instances in which their testimony is in dispute, the testimony of Respondent alone has been used to construct the events of the following eighteen hours or so, unless otherwise indicated. As the evening progressed, Chris and Kim, who were accompanied by Denise at least part of the way, went back home to see if they could get into the house to get their clothes. They intentionally went when they knew everyone would be gone at church. However, they found that they could not gain access to the house. The daughters may have visited their house a couple of more times when they knew that no one would be home. The record does not disclose whether they returned to try different means to get into the locked house, to mislead Mrs. Lanning into thinking that they were genuinely trying to contact Respondent and his wife, or to entertain themselves by walking around their neighborhood at night. Mrs. Lanning did not try to telephone Respondent or his wife that evening, although this apparently is due to her justifiable belief that they knew where the children were. An uneventful evening followed during which Chris and Kim slept at the Lanning's home and generally enjoyed themselves. Although she was good friends with Denise, Chris had never spent an evening at her friend's house. Respondent was a strong disciplinarian. The following morning, which was a school day, Chris and Kim again tried to reenter their house when they knew their stepmother would be taking their stepsister to school. Unable to gain access to their house and without school clothes, Chris and Kim decided to remain at the Lanning's home that day, and Denise stayed home with them. Later that morning, Mrs. Lanning telephoned Respondent at work and left a message for him to call her. As soon as he was able, Respondent returned the call. The time was about 10:00 a.m. Although the conversation was memorable, neither Mrs. Lanning nor Respondent remembers the conversation in the same terms. They agree that Mrs. Lanning told Respondent that his daughters were at her house, they were upset, and Respondent's house was locked. The remainder of the conversation is based on the testimony of Respondent. Frequently calling her "babe" and "darling," notwithstanding Mrs. Lanning's objections to this offensive practice, Respondent informed Mrs. Lanning that the house would remain locked as long as no one was at home. When Mrs. Lanning offered her advice that he should allow the girls to eat eggs, Respondent replied, "Hey, babe, that's none of your business." Mrs. Lanning retorted, "I'm not going to send [the children] down to that bitch [Respondent's third wife]." Respondent then informed Mrs. Lanning that he would pick up his daughters when he returned home from work that afternoon. At this point, Respondent called his wife and related the conversation, omitting the offensive reference to her. Respondent's wife said that she had reported the girls as missing persons when they had not returned from school that afternoon. At about 3:30 p.m., Respondent arrived home still in uniform and in a marked patrol car. When he greeted his wife, he learned that Mrs. Lanning had spoken with an older daughter of Respondent. The older daughter, who lived in St. Cloud, had called Respondent's wife and told her that Mrs. Lanning was crazy and they should get the children as soon as possible. Respondent immediately went to Mrs. Lanning's house, still in uniform and still wearing his gun. He knocked on the door. Mrs. Lanning answered the door by opening it slightly. Chris, Kim, Denise, and a friend, Deanna, were in the vicinity of the patio in the back, not clearly visible from the doorway. When the door opened partially, Respondent stepped into the house, uninvited and obviously unwelcome. When Respondent entered the house, Mrs. Lanning exhorted him loudly to leave. Respondent said that he just wanted his kids and would leave once he had them. Mrs. Lanning tried to push him out the door. He warned her not to. She kept trying to push him out the door. In a raised voice and threatening tone, Respondent insisted, "Hey, babe, I want my kids and I want them now." As Respondent testified, "It took 20 years of training and every fiber of my being not to go over there and strangle her." Resisting this impulse, Respondent instead grabbed the wrist of Mrs. Lanning and informed her, "That's it, darling. You're under arrest." When she asked what was the charge, he told her, "Well, we'll start off with kidnapping." Respondent was aware that Mrs. Lanning was not guilty of kidnapping. Respondent then turned Mrs. Lanning's arm behind her back. The children entered the room. Denise came to the aid of her mother. She tried to grab Respondent, who informed her: "Get your hands off me, toots." Denise then called him and his wife sons of a bitch. Although Respondent denies touching Denise, his daughter, Kim, whose testimony was generally favorable to her father, testified that Respondent took Denise by the wrist and pushed her away. Kim's testimony is credited. In a similar regard, Kim testified that she saw her father remove a telephone from Mrs. Lanning's hand in an attempt to prevent her from calling the police. Kim's testimony is credited on this point as well. After additional heated exchanges, Respondent was unable to persuade his daughters to return home. He instead left the Lanning's home a few minutes before a deputy from the Orange County Sheriff's Office arrived on the scene in response to calls from Mrs. Lanning and Denise. Changing into civilian clothes, Respondent prepared himself to speak with the deputy. The deputy initially treated the call as a neighborhood dispute, which he tried to settle. He spoke first with Mrs. Lanning and found her sensible and composed. She reported nothing of being touched by Respondent, only that he had forced his way into her home. The deputy then went to Respondent's house and found him in a similar state. The atmosphere deteriorated when the deputy brought Respondent back with him to Mrs. Lanning's house to apologize. Mrs. Lanning became irate and hostile. Recognizing that he was involved in a domestic disturbance, the deputy wisely called for supervisory assistance. After a corporal arrived on the scene, the deputy issued Respondent a trespass warning, which ordered him to stay off Mrs. Lanning's property. Notwithstanding the best efforts of both law enforcement officers, they could not mollify Mrs. Lanning. Mrs. Lanning later complained to the Orange County Sheriff's Office about the deputy and corporal. The record discloses no basis whatsoever for such complaint. To the contrary, the timely decision of the deputy to involve a supervisor in the investigation negates any suggestion that he intended to treat Respondent deferentially because of his status as a law enforcement officer. As a result of the above-described event, Respondent was terminated from the Florida Highway Patrol. Mrs. Lanning claims that she sustained a dislocated shoulder and serious injuries to her arm, back, and neck. She now suffers from bursitis and arthritis as a result of the incident. This testimony is not credited. Mrs. Lanning proved capable of complaining when she felt the need, yet she said nothing of a dislocated shoulder, pain, or even the physical touching when she first spoke with the deputy. The case involves more than Respondent's demonstrated inability to regain custody of his daughters in a prudent and appropriate manner. The case involves more than a lack of "people skills," such as in repeatedly calling a woman "babe" or "darling," especially after she has asked not to be called that, in a transparent effort to intimidate and patronize. The case involves a uniformed, armed law enforcement officer, trembling with rage for perceived but insignificant threats to his authority, allowing fury to overwhelm his reason and ignoring the critical distinctions among his roles as trooper, parent, and neighbor. Under these facts, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character. On August 16, 1988, the Office of the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit filed a two count information alleging that Respondent committed the offense of battery upon Mrs. Lanning and her daughter. On November 10, 1988, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges in Orange County Court. In his twenty-one years with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent maintained a good record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and suspending his certificate for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 10-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 22-43: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings I, a-c: rejected as not findings of fact. II: adopted in substance except "near-perfect" record rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. II, a-b: adopted or adopted in substance. II, c: first sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder adopted in substance. II, d: adopted. II, e: rejected as subordinate. II, f-k: adopted or adopted in substance, although the proposed facts do not adequately describe the incident at Mrs. Lanning's house. II, l: adopted in substance except that complaint filed against Mrs. Lanning is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Attorney Douglas E. Whitney Maitland Springs Office Park 377 Maitland Avenue, Suite 101 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Jeffrey Long Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue This is a case in which, by Administrative Complaint served on Respondent on September 17, 1985, the Criminal Justice. Standards And Training Commission seeks to revoke Certificate Number 502-3415, which was issued to Respondent on November 5, 1982. As grounds for the proposed revocation it is asserted that Respondent lacks good moral character and is therefore in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission on November 5, 1982, and was issued Certificate Number 502-3415. During December of 1984 and January of 1985, the Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Polk Correctional Institution. On January 29, 1985, Polk County Sheriff's Deputy Lawrence Annen and Department of Corrections Inspector Clayton Lambert served a search warrant and conducted a search inside the Polk County, Florida, residence of the Respondent and his wife. Upon the arrival of Deputy Annen and Inspector Lambert at the Respondent's home on January 29, 1985, the Respondent was present and was advised of the warrant and of his constitutional rights under the Miranda decision. The Respondent indicated that he understood his rights. Subsequent to the foregoing, the Respondent led then Deputy and the Inspector to a quantity of cannabis, which was present inside Respondent's residence. The Respondent pointed out the cannabis and stated "here it is" and "this is all I have." During the execution of the search warrant, the Respondent also stated that he and his wife had purchased the marijuana for $25 an ounce or baggie. The cannabis was seized by Deputy Annen as evidence and was later submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime laboratory for analysis. It was confirmed by scientific analysis to be 9.1 grams of cannabis. On January 31, 1985, the Respondent was again advised of his constitutional rights under the Miranda decision by Inspector Lambert. The Respondent thereafter admitted smoking cannabis because it relaxed him and admitted giving his wife money with which to buy cannabis. The Respondent readily admitted, during the course of the formal hearing in this case, that he had unlawfully possessed and used cannabis and had furnished the funds for his wife to purchase cannabis. The Respondent was adjudged guilty, on March 20, 1985, as to the criminal charge of Possession of Less Than Twenty Grams of Cannabis before the County Court, in and for Polk County, Florida.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's Certificate Number 502-3415. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of May, 1986. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1 of the Petitioner's proposed findings consists of a summary of the procedural history of this case. It is rejected as a finding of fact, but is incorporated in substance into the introductory information in this Recommended Order. The following paragraphs of Petitioner's proposed findings are all accepted with a few minor editorial changes: 2, 3,-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The substance of paragraph 10 of Petitioner's proposed findings is accepted with the deletion of unnecessary subordinate details. Findings proposed by Respondent The Respondent did not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Harry C. Frier Post Office Box 2062 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Larry A. Labay, failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b). If so, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer licensed by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. He received his correctional certificate, number 285033, on July 17, 2009. Respondent was employed by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) from February 16, 2010, through July 18, 2011. Respondent was in a relationship with a woman named Marissa Meszaros. Their relationship began in approximately May of 2011. Ms. Meszaros was the subject of an investigation by the narcotics unit of CCSO, which believed that she might be involved in selling narcotics. A confidential informant had been used to make controlled purchases of controlled substances from Ms. Meszaros. During the course of the investigation into Ms. Meszaros, the drug task force learned that a possible CCSO employee was at the scene of some of the controlled purchases. A video recording of some of the buys showed Respondent directly in front of an illegal drug transaction. As a result, Respondent’s conduct was also investigated. On June 27, 2011, Respondent and Ms. Meszaros were observed riding in Respondent’s red 2000 Dodge pickup truck in the Orange Park area. They were observed leaving the Orange Park mall and going into an area known as a high drug-traffic area, and then south on Blanding Boulevard toward Labay’s residence. Once Respondent left Orange Park and returned from Duval County to Clay County, Detective Mark Maertz stopped Labay’s vehicle because the tag for his truck had expired. Detective Maertz was part of the CCSO’s canine unit. Once the truck was stopped, Detective Maertz deployed his dog, Rex, who alerted to the presence of narcotics. Detective Maertz requested that Respondent and Ms. Meszaros exit the car, and they did so. Ms. Meszaros was found to have crack cocaine in her bra. (A female officer dealt with her at the scene.) Also discovered were trace amounts of a green leafy substance throughout the floorboard on the driver’s side of the truck. The substance was in plain view of anyone getting into the driver’s side of car. As a result of their training and experience, both Detective Maertz, who stopped the car, and Sergeant Shawn Gordon, who actually conducted the search of the truck, recognized the substance as marijuana or cannabis, also referred to as “shake.” Respondent was detained and questioned following the traffic stop. He was questioned after being given his Miranda rights. He also gave consent to a search of his residence. At the beginning of the interview, Respondent denied ever using drugs or seeing Ms. Meszaros using drugs. However, after some questioning, Respondent admitted to giving Meszaros money to buy drugs and seeing her use them. A search of his residence resulted in the discovery of a “bong,” or pipe used to smoke marijuana, in the common bathroom, and a crack pipe in the master bedroom. The marijuana pipe was in plain view in the hall bathroom. The crack pipe was in a cigarette box on the dresser in the master bedroom. Respondent told the detectives who questioned him that they would find the drug paraphernalia in his home. The home was owned by Respondent. Ms. Meszaros had recently moved in with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter an Order finding that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character as defined in rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b) in violation of section 943.1395(7), and revoking his certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 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 11th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey Phillip Dambly, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Labay (Address of record) Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact On December 6, 1985, Petitioner, Johnnie J. Williams, filed an application with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department), for a Class "G" armed guard license. By letter of April 30, 1986, the Department advised Petitioner that his application had been denied. Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing. The basis of the Department's denial was predicated on its conclusion that Petitioner (a) had failed to list alias names on his application, (b) had, under an alias name of Hubert Jackson, been convicted of aggravated assault, (c) had, under an alias name of Harry Hill, been convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, unlawful possession of central nervous system stimulant, unlawful possession of narcotic drug, and unlawful possession of implements for central nervous system stimulant, (d) had failed to submit a sufficient Firearms Proficiency Certificate, and (e) did not possess a valid Class "D" license. The Department's conclusions were, however, ill founded. Petitioner is not the same person as Hubert Jackson or Harry Hill, and has never been known by a name other than his own. At hearing, the Department agreed to stipulate that it had erred in attributing the offenses committed by Jackson and Hill to the Petitioner, and further agreed that Petitioner possessed a valid and current Class "D" license. With respect to the only other basis for denial, possession of a sufficient Firearms Proficiency Certificate, Petitioner's application facially complied with the Department's requirements and was not shown to be lacking in any particular. Although the reasons advanced by the Department for denial in its April 30, 1986, letter were ill founded, evidence was presented at hearing concerning three events involving Petitioner which could affect his qualification for licensure. Petitioner has at various times driven a taxi cab for a living, and routinely carried a registered, but unlicensed gun in his cab for personal protection. In 1966, Petitioner was found guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and fined $100 for producing his gun in response to a threat to his person. While its possession in a concealed manner was not legal, the proof established that Petitioner's response was motivated by a well grounded fear that his antagonist was about to assault him with a firearm. In 1970 Petitioner was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm in his taxi cab. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on one year probation with the restriction that he not carry any weapons. Petitioner successfully completed his probation, and is currently possessed of his full civil rights. The final event which could bear on Petitioner's qualifications concerns a domestic disturbance which occurred between him and his wife in March or April 1986. Although Petitioner was arrested as a result of that disturbance, there is no evidence that any physical force was used upon his wife or that Petitioner possessed or exhibited any weapon during the dispute. Subsequently, what ever charges had been made against Petitioner were withdrawn, and no further action was taken. While Petitioner's possession of a weapon, without proper licensure cannot be condoned, his concern for his personal safety can be appreciated. Consequently, the events detailed in paragraph 4 supra, much less the events detailed in paragraph 5 supra, do not detract from the evidence of good moral character Petitioner has been demonstrated to possess, nor his satisfaction of the licensure requirements established by Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application be approved, and that he be issued a Class "G", armed guard, license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of October 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay M. Kolsky, Esquire 239 Northeast 20th Street Miami, Florida 33137 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
