The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), by unlawfully soliciting a woman to commit prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified correctional officer since 1990. He holds Correctional Certificate Number 53627. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was operating his motor vehicle in a light rain in the vicinity of 68th Avenue and 17th Street at approximately 8:45 p.m. He saw a young female standing alongside the road. Respondent stopped his car and rolled down the passenger side window. He asked the woman if she needed a ride. She replied, "Do I ride?" This response implied to Respondent that she would assume the superior position in any sexual activity. Respondent repeated his initial question, and the woman replied with the same answer. The woman was a police officer who was conducting a prostitution sting operation with other officers, who were not visible to Respondent. The woman did not testify, and the other officers did not hear the conversation that took place between the woman and Respondent, so the sole source of the conversation is Respondent, who testified at the hearing and gave a statement to investigators. The conversation as described in these findings of fact is derived entirely from Respondent. Respondent replied to the woman, "I got $20." The woman asked, "For what?" Respondent answered, "For a fuck." The woman asked Respondent would he give her a ride back to their current location, and Respondent assured her that he would. The woman then turned away, explaining to Respondent that she was getting her pocketbook, but actually signalling to her fellow officers to take down Respondent. Respondent had felt that something was wrong and had started to drive away, but the officers quickly apprehended him. Following his arrest, Respondent was charged with soliciting a prostitution. However, he completed a pretrial diversion program, and the State Attorney's Office dismissed the case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and revoking his correctional officer certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Laurie Beth Binder Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William Chennault Chennault Attorneys & Counsellors at Law Post Office Box 1097 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1097
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds a Class "D" Security Officer license number D92- 03311. The license was issued in 1992. Beginning in 1992, the Petitioner resided with his companion, Tiatiana Aleksandrova, and their children Ruth and Ilia Shuvalov. On December 18, 1992, the Respondent and Tiatiana were arguing and he shoved Tiatiana. Daughter Ruth, 14 years old, was present and saw the incident occur. Apparently attempting to protect her mother, Ruth became involved in the altercation. At the point of her involvement, the Respondent grabbed Ruth by the arm and throat, and pushed her into the kitchen wall. Ruth, much younger and smaller than the Respondent, posed no threat of harm to him. Immediately after the December 18 incident, Tiatiana, Ruth and 12 year old Ilia went to the Gulfport, Florida, Police Department where they discussed the incident with Officer Michael J. Bieluwka. Officer Bieluwka went to the Respondent's home. The Respondent refused to cooperate in the investigation. Based on the accounts of the events provided by Tiatiana and the children, Officer Bieluwka believed he had probable cause to arrest the Respondent. He attempted to effect the arrest at the Respondent's home. As Officer Bieluwka placed the Respondent under arrest, the Respondent pulled his arm from the officer's grasp and attempted to get away from him. The Respondent was charged with resisting arrest without violence. Eventually, the Respondent entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of resisting arrest without violence. On June 22, 1993, Tiatiana and the children were asleep in the Respondent's home. Just before dawn, the Respondent entered the room where Tiatiana slept, kicked her, pulled her hair, and demanded that she get up. Based on the June 22 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. On July 20, 1993, the Respondent had shut off the water line to the house at the main valve. Tiatiana, attempting to bathe, went outside and turned the water back on. An argument ensued outside the house and continuing when they reentered the structure. As Tiatiana stood in the kitchen, the Respondent entered through a screen door. The door closed on and broke a drinking glass he held in his hand. He threw the broken glass towards Tiatiana. The glass struck and cut her right leg just below the knee. Based on the July 20 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. There is no evidence that Tiatiana posed a threat of harm to the Respondent at any time or that she consented to the violence. There is no evidence that commission of violence or use of force on any person was required to protect the Respondent or another person from physical harm.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order revoking the Class "D" Security Officer license of Edward Shuvalov, license number D92-03311, and imposing a fine of $1,500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4482 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent's proposed recommended order is a statement of the financial hardship which will allegedly be imposed if he does not prevail in this case. The Hearing Officer's responsibility is to determine whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The imposition of penalties is governed by the Rules cited herein. The Respondent's proposed recommended order is rejected as legally irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward Shuvalov Post Office Box 5057 Gulfport, Florida 33737
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer having been certified by the Commission on August 5, 1983 and issued certificate number 43-86-017-01. Respondent had previously been certified as a law enforcement officer by the Commission in December 1974 but that certificate expired while Respondent was attending college. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. However, Respondent began his employment as a law enforcement officer in 1974 when he worked for the Windermere Police Department in Orange County, Florida, and since July 1990 has worked part-time for the Davenport Police Department. Respondent has been employed full-time as a financial consultant with Merrill Lynch since February 1990. Respondent is licensed in Florida under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes to conduct securities transaction and licensed under Chapter 626, Florida Statutes to conduct business in annuities, life insurance and health insurance. Licensure under both Chapter 517, Florida Statutes and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, requires, among other requirements, that the licensee be of good moral character. On September 29, 1989, Respondent was on duty as an Osceola County Sheriff's Department deputy assigned to the southwest portion of Osceola County. At approximately 1800 hours, Respondent was dispatched to a residence in the community of Poinciana to talk to the parents of two minor females (ages fourteen and sixteen) who were allegedly provided alcoholic beverages by three adult males earlier in the day. The juveniles, who had skipped school, advised Respondent that the three males had taken them to a lake and allowed them to drink beer and go swimming. The three males involved were pointed out to Respondent, who then went to the males and questioned them. During this questioning, a "field contact card" was completed on each male. The time of completion of the cards is indicated on the cards to be 1830 hours (6:30 p.m.). By reason of the completion of the cards, Respondent identified the names of the three males (Robert Miller, William Troy, and Clayton Daniel Worley), their ages (27, 26, and 19 years, respectively), their addresses, phone numbers, physical descriptions, social security numbers, and, for Miller and Worley, drivers license numbers. Worley was identified as owner of the red pickup truck on the scene. After completing the contact cards, Respondent returned to the victims. One victim, J.B., age 14, reported that while she was in the water, Robert Miller started feeling her breasts and that Clayton Worley also grabbed her and started fondling her breasts. According to J.B., she told Miller and Worley to leave her alone, and she went ashore. J.B. then related that William Troy then asked her to go for a walk and that during the walk, Troy grabbed J.B. and tried to kiss her, than pulled his penis from his pants and forced her hand into it. J.B. indicated she pulled away but Troy grabbed her again and tried to force her to touch his penis. J.B. indicated Troy repeatedly asked her to perform various sex acts and she refused. According to J.B., the three males agreed to take the girls home and, when the truck stopped at an intersection, J.B. jumped from the truck and sought help. By the time Respondent learned of the breast fondling and penis exposure allegations, the males had left the scene. Respondent contacted his supervisor then-Sergeant Robert Hansell who talked with him about probable cause to arrest the three suspects. Hansell further contacted the on-call investigator Detective Andy Strecker who agreed with Hansell that there was probable cause to effect arrests for lewd and lascivious acts committed in the presence of a minor. Strecker contacted Respondent by phone, instructed him to send the parents and juveniles to the Sheriff's Office for sworn taped statements and to effect the arrest of all three suspects, if possible, on the felony charge of lewd and lascivious acts. Neither Hansell nor Strecker advised Respondent to charge sexual battery at that time, although Respondent still considered it a probable charge. After leaving the victim's home, Respondent attempted to locate the three males. During this attempt, he identified the red pickup truck and made a traffic (felony) stop of the vehicle at the intersection of San Remo Court and Deauville Court in Osceola County. Respondent recognized the driver as one of the three males who had been questioned by Respondent in conjunction with the "field contact cards" earlier, and knew the driver was not the vehicle owner, Clayton Worley. The traffic (felony) stop was indicated to the Osceola Sheriff dispatcher by Respondent at approximately 204658 (two seconds before 8:47 p.m.). Respondent exited his patrol car and ordered Miller to get out of the truck. When Miller reached the front of the patrol car Respondent ordered him to place his hands on the hood of the patrol car. As Miller placed his hands on the hood of the patrol car, Respondent stepped up behind Miller and advised him he was under arrest. At this time Respondent noticed a bulge in Miller's right rear pocket that was not there earlier when Respondent had asked for identification. Before Respondent could secure the handcuffs, Miller began acting belligerently by raising his hands and turning around and asking why he was being arrested. Respondent pushed Miller back onto the hood of the patrol car, advised him he was under arrest again, and told Miller to place his hands behind his back. Miller did not comply but spun around bumping into the Respondent. At this point, Respondent felt a hit against his weapon and a pull on his gunbelt causing Respondent to think that Miller was attempting to get his weapon. As a result, Respondent pushed Miller away and swung his gunside away from Miller. As Respondent recovered his balance, he turned toward Miller who was on his hands and feet in the roadway beside the driver's side of the patrol car. Respondent grabbed for Miller, but Miller jumped up and ran counter clockwise around the patrol car, west on San Remo Court to Deauville Court, a distance of about 35 feet. Respondent pursued Miller on foot as Miller turned south on Deauville Court. Other than Respondent's flashlight, the only light in the area was a street light at the southeast corner of San Remo Court and Deauville Court. As Respondent chased Miller away from the street light the area of the chase became less illuminated, and required Respondent to depend more on his flashlight. Since Respondent had failed to switch his flashlight from wide beam to narrow beam the flashlight did not provide sufficient light for Respondent to clearly observe Miller's actions during the chase. After the Respondent had chased Miller about 77 feet, Miller suddenly stopped about 30 feet from Respondent. Miller then turned toward Respondent with both hands somewhat extended and held close together in front of his body about waist level in what Respondent considered an offensive position. Miller made no effort to raise his hands as to give up. Since Miller had escaped before Respondent had been able to determine what the bulge was in his rear jeans pocket, Respondent believed that Miller had a weapon and was preparing to shoot him. Because they had moved away from the street light into a less illuminated area during the chase, the Respondent was unable to determine if Miller had a gun in his hands. Under the circumstances the Respondent feared for his life, and therefore, pulled his weapon, aimed and fired once. Miller then turned and ran south on Deauville Court again with Respondent pursuing him. Miller ran another 40 or 50 feet, suddenly stopped and pivoted toward Respondent, again holding his hands together low and in front of his body similar to that used to hold a handgun at low port. When Miller continued to hold his hands in an offensive position, the Respondent, again in fear for his life, fired three rounds. Apparently, Miller turned to run while Respondent was still shooting since Miller was hit in the lower right side of his back just above the hip through the Levi-Strauss patch on his jeans by one of the bullets. Although Respondent thought he had hit Miller, he began to have doubts that he had hit him when Miller started running again without staggering. Miller ran a short distance further south on Deauville Court before turning right (southwest) into an area of tall grass and ducked out of sight. Respondent followed Miller a short distance into a wooded area but retreated when he realized he might be shot from ambush because at this point Respondent still assumed that Miller was possibly armed. At approximately 8:49 p.m., Respondent requested a K-9 unit for searching the area. Respondent made this call for the K-9 unit from his hand- held radio while he was still near the area where Miller had entered the woods. This call was made approximately two minutes after Respondent indicated to the dispatcher that he was making the traffic (felony) stop. Upon returning to his patrol car, Respondent and Deputy Larry Dodson who had responded to Respondent's call for assistance removed Clayton Worley, the vehicle's owner, from the truck. Worley was unconscious from alcohol consumption but otherwise okay. Respondent explained to Dobson what had transpired and Dobson called Sergeant Hansell and secured the perimeter until the K-9 unit arrived. K-9 officer, Deputy Lisa Bowen arrived at approximately 9:07 p.m., and although not advised by Respondent that Miller might be armed and dangerous or that Respondent had fired shots at Miller, Bowen had heard the call for assistance and the shots-fired dispatch. Deputy Bowen proceeded to search the area in accordance with proper procedures, and eventually found Miller and placed him under arrest. Deputy Cutcher who had also responded to the call for assistance handcuffed Miller. Miller advised the deputies that he had been shot and could not move. Deputy Bowen found one bullet entry and requested paramedics and ambulance at approximate 9:48 p.m. Miller was identified from his wallet which had been taken from his pocket by Deputy Cutcher. When Sergeant Hansell, who had arrived on the scene, learned that Miller had been shot and was possibly armed, he directed the 9MM "spent" shell casings to be secured, that all law enforcement officers be advised that Miller may be armed, and directed Respondent to sit in his patrol car and not to discuss the incident with anyone. No firearm was found on Miller, and no firearm was found at the scene other than the service firearm secured from Respondent. Four 9MM "spent" casings from Respondent's service firearm were found at the scene. One "spent" 9MM casing was found in the area where Respondent first fired at Miller and three "spent" 9MM casings were found in the area where Respondent fired at Miller the second time. No other "spent" bullet casings were found at the scene. The shot that wounded Miller was fired by Respondent using his service firearm. Miller was admitted to Humana Hospital in Kissimmee at 11:15 p.m. where the bullet was surgically removed from the abdominal area by Dr. Antonio Ramirez. Miller's blood alcohol content was determined to be 0.18 percent. Evidence of Benzodiazepine (a class of tranquilizer which includes valium), cannabnoid, and cocaine metabohite were found by a urine drug screen. The arrest history for Miller indicates two arrests for resisting arrest; one dismissed and one with no disposition, and one charge of battery on a police officer which was dismissed. Subsequent to the night of the incident, Investigator Ryan, with the assistance of Deputy Bowen and Detective Webster, conducted an experiment at the scene to determine what the Respondent could have observed in regards to Miller's action under the same conditions as on the night of the incident. Notwithstanding the results of this experiment, the most credible evidence of what the Respondent may have seen or thought he saw during the chase of Miller was Respondent's testimony in this regard which is set out in the above Findings of Fact. While I understand Ryan's effort in this regard, none of those involved in the experiment had to make decisions on what they saw while chasing a person who had just escaped and who may possibly be armed. Respondent did not enjoy this luxury on the night of September 29, 1991 while chasing Miller who, Respondent had reason to believe, might be armed. Stewart R. Hudson, a special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated possible criminal charges against Respondent for aggravated assault concerning the shooting of Miller by Respondent on September 29, 1989. Hudson's investigative report, dated October 9, 1989, was submitted to the State Attorney's Office, Ninth Circuit, and to Sheriff Jon Lane. On November 7, 1989, the State Attorney's Office presented to the Grand Jury Hudson's investigative report. Agent Hudson, Sergeant Hansell and Major Magnaght testified before the Grand Jury regarding the shooting. The Grand Jury voted No True Bill, apparently finding the shooting to be justifiable use of force pursuant to Section 776.05, Florida Statutes. On October 11, 1989, an Osceola County Sheriff's Office Investigator interviewed Respondent regarding the shooting of Miller. Subsequently, the investigator asked Respondent to take polygraph examinations on October 19 and October 27, 1989. Each of the exams showed that Respondent was truthful regarding his fear for his life on September 29, 1989, and truthful in answering Sergeant Ryan on October 11, 1989. 2/ Nevertheless Sergeant Ryan indicated that Respondent was untruthful regarding whether Respondent struggled with Miller and whether Miller was facing him with his hands in a threatening manner when Andrews shot him. When Ryan told Respondent and impressed upon him he did not believe him after the polygraph examinations on October 19 and 27, 1989, Respondent changed his account of the two points which Ryan said showed deception and tried to comport his testimony with what he had been told the polygraph examinations showed. Respondent then requested to be polygraphed again on those questions to prove that he had been truthful in the interview of October 11, 1989, in his incident report and in his interview with Agent Hudson. Ryan indicated that he could not do another polygraph and reported that Respondent had given false information during the internal investigation with the intent to mislead the investigators. At the meeting when Respondent was dismissed on November 6, 1989, Andrews stood by his report and explained the changes in the October 27, 1989 interview with Sergeant Ryan. When he had finished, Commander Croft asked if Respondent was allowed or given the opportunity to be polygraphed after he changed his account of the shooting. Ryan indicated that they had already discussed this and told Respondent, "Don't go muddy up the water." Respondent's employment with the Osceola County Sheriff's Office was terminated November 6, 1989. Notwithstanding that Respondent changed his story to comport with the alleged results of the polygraph examinations of October 11 and 27,1989 that he was being untruthful concerning the matter set out above, the more credible evidence concerning the events of the night of September 29, 1989 which led up to the shooting of Miller is Respondent's testimony at the hearing which comports in almost every detail with the Offense Incident Report which was completed and filed by Respondent shortly after the incident occurred. Respondent's reason for changing his story concerning Miller's action was that he was aggravated by the investigation, and thought that by giving the "changed answers" to the same questions on another polygraph examination would indicate that he was also being untruthful with the "changed answers" and hopefully, this would clear up those areas on the two previous polygraph examinations. There was sufficient substantial competent evidence to establish that Respondent was in fear in his life, on both occasions, when he shot at Miller on September 29, 1989, and that Respondent's reasons for changing certain statements about the incident was done neither with the intent to mislead the investigation nor to accomplish some unlawful purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Administrative Complaint, as amended at the hearing, filed against the Respondent be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by unlawfully acquiring or obtaining, or attempting to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge on or about July 16, 1999; by unlawfully withholding information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance on or between April 1, 1999, and August 5, 1999; by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself or others, to wit: prepared a fictitious Offense/Incident Report as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tad K. Moody, is a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 160029 on February 11, 1996. Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police officer during the period February 11, 1996, through May 19, 2000. In August of 1998, Respondent received an on-duty injury and was prescribed pain medications as a result. Respondent signed a contract with Dr. Greenberger stating that he would only receive controlled substances from Dr. Greenberger. Respondent went to several different doctors after August 1998 and received prescription pain medications from all of them. Respondent never advised his treating physicians that he was receiving Hydrocodone or other pain medication from each of his treating physicians. Respondent did not inform any of the physicians that he was receiving prescription pain medications from any of the other physicians. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent reported to his treating physician’s office that his vehicle was stolen with his medication in it. Dr. Batas required substantiation of the theft in the form of an auto theft report prior to issuing additional medication. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent prepared a false Tampa Police Department Offense/Incident Report, reporting that his vehicle containing medications had been stolen. He submitted it to Dr. Batas' office in order to receive additional medication. On August 4, 1999, Respondent presented a prescription for 90 Vicoprofen to the Eckerd Drug Store pharmacy at 1904 West Lumsden in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Steven J. Tresser, M.D., had written Respondent a prescription on August 4, 1999, for 40, not 90, Vicoprofen. The Eckerd Drug Store personnel identified Respondent as the individual who submitted the altered prescription for Vicoprofen or Hydrocodone. Respondent admitted to Detective Lusczynski, during an interview, that he had an addiction problem due to the back pain he suffered as a result of the injury he received in 1998. In late 1999, Respondent was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. On or about July 24, 2000, Respondent entered into a Drug Court Agreement for 18 months' probation with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's State Attorney's Office. As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to successfully complete the Drug Court Program, including evaluation; counseling; random urinalysis; and pay $372 court costs, plus $40 a month toward supervision. Respondent's drug case was dismissed on March 14, 2002, based on his successful completion of the Drug Court Program. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully acquired possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation on or about July 16, 1999. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance during the relevant time period. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent corruptly used, or attempted to use, his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself by preparing a fictitious Offense/Incident Report on or about July 16, 1999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tad K. Moody 10124 Woodberry Road Tampa, Florida 33619 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, an executive agency of the State of Florida, is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.01(6), Florida Statutes. Vickers is a black male who at all times material to this proceeding was employed by the Department. Vickers was first hired as a COI at the Mayo Correctional Institution, Lafayette County, Florida, on or about October 30, 1987, and transferred to the Madison Correctional Institution, Madison County, Florida, on or about February 19, 1988. At all times material to this proceeding, Vickers held permanent status within the Career Service System, enacted and authorized under the laws of Florida. On April 28, 1989, Vickers was promoted from COI in food service to COII in food service. Vickers was placed on a nine-month probationary status insofar as the promotion was concerned. Vickers was selected for this promotion over two other white candidates. The interview team consisted of Eric Holt, Cathy Leggett and Aubrey Dean. Then-Superintendent, Terry Hicks selected Vickers for the promotion on the recommendation of the review committee. In the position of COII in food service, Vickers was responsible for supervising staff and inmates in the preparation of food at the Madison Correctional Institution. Vickers would supervise as many as three correctional officers and as many as 20-30inmates. Among those under Vicker's supervision was COI, Janice Lingenfelter and inmate Jeffery Lausin. On or about August 15, 1989, Lingenfelter made a complaint to COII Nellie Cunningham that Vickers had been sexually harassing her. Lingenfelter then made a written complaint to Hicks, who then requested that an inspector from the Department's Inspector General's Office be assigned to investigate the allegations. CO Inspector II William Dotson was assigned to investigate the allegations made by Lingenfelter. Dotson began his investigation on August 17, 1989, by interviewing several witnesses including Lingenfelter, Cunningham, Lausin and Vickers. Dotson's investigative report was completed and sent for review to the Inspector General of the Department on October 3, 1989. It was determined through Dotson's investigation that there was evidence to support Lingenfelter's claim of sexual harassment against Vickers and a failure by Vickers to maintain a professional relationship with staff and inmates under his supervision. Dotson's report was sent to Hicks at Madison Correctional Institution sometime between October 4, 1989 and November 1, 1989. By letter dated November 1, 1989, Vickers was notified that disciplinary charges were being brought against him for violating certain Department rules pertaining to sexual harassment and failure to maintain a professional relationship with inmates under his supervision. That letter, signed by Hicks, also advised Vickers of his right to request a conference, prior to any final action being taken, at which he could present evidence to refute or explain the charges against him. Vickers requested and was given a conference held on November 28, 1989. At that conference, Vickers was represented by counsel and presented a statement to Hicks regarding the charges against him. Vickers was notified by letter dated December 6, 1989 that he would be suspended for five days without pay for his violation of the rules cited in the charging letter of November 1, 1989. On or about August 18, 1989, Vickers was reassigned from food service to security. Hicks made this reassignment due to the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Vickers which had originated in food service. After reviewing Dotson's investigative report, and after hearing Vickers' response to the charges against him, Hicks made the decision to demote from COII to COI. The demotion was effective December 15, 1989. At the time of the demotion, Vickers was in probationary status as a COII. Hicks determined that Vickers had exhibited an inability to properly supervise the inmates and staff under his supervision. An inmate in food service had patted a female correctional officer in food service (Lingenfelter) on the buttocks. Hicks attributed this lack of discipline on the part of the inmate to poor supervision by Vickers. On or about December 15, 1989, Vickers was given a below standards performance appraisal written by Eric Holt, his supervisor. On the front of the appraisal was the indication that it was a probationary appraisal. Personnel Manager Leggett told Hicks that it should be a special performance appraisal rather than probationary, but Hicks did not change the appraisal prior to giving it to Vickers. This performance appraisal was incorrectly titled "probationary" rather than "special", and later determined to be invalid. Vickers was not given an annual performance appraisal on his anniversary date (October 30, 1989) because he was in a probationary status. While the failure to give a timely and appropriate employee performance appraisal may be a violation of the Career Service System Rules, Chapter 22A-9, Florida Administrative Code, this not would prohibit the Department from demoting an employee who is on probationary status because of a promotion, if there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the demotion. Vickers has never received a Performance Appraisal wherein he was rated at less than an "Achieves Level", other than the Performance Appraisal entitled "probationary" which was later determined to be invalid for reasons other than the rating of Vickers' performance. Vickers appealed his suspension and demotion to the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). A hearing was held, since it was determined that PERC did have jurisdiction to review Vicker's suspension but not his demotion. Under the personnel rules governing state employees, a person who is in probationary status in a class may not appeal his or her demotion from that class. After hearing and weighing the evidence and argument of both parties, the Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order dated March 2, 1990 wherein it was found that the Department had proven the charges against Vickers by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore, just cause existed for discipline. The Hearing Officer also determined that the five-day suspension should not be reduced, specifically citing the seriousness of the offense as it related to his duties and responsibilities. A Final Order was issued by PERC on May 2, 1990 adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in its entirety and dismissing Vicker's appeal. Approximately January 3, 1990, interviews were held to fill the position of COII in food service from which Vickers had been demoted. Of the eleven applicants, two were black males, one was a black female, five were white males, and three were white females. One of the black males cancelled his interview, while the other "declined F.S." (food service). The black female was promoted to a position with the Hamilton Correctional Institution. Larry Pickels, a qualified white male, was selected for the position. Neither the "invalid Performance Appraisal" nor Hick's decision to demote Vickers were motivated by Vickers' race or sex, to wit: black and male. The Department has produced sufficient admissible evidence to show that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for demoting Vickers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner, Curtis Vickers, was not demoted due to his race or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statute, and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5279 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings Of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2,3); 3(4); 4(14); 5(2,19); 6(11); 7(7,18); 8(7); 11(10); 12(17); 13-14(16); 15-16(15); 18(14); 19(12); 20-21(14); 27(7,8); 31(16). Proposed findings of fact 9 and 10 are a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 8. Proposed findings of fact 17, 28 and 32 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 22-26, and 33 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed findings of fact 29 and 30 are more in the way of an argument than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 34 is neither material nor relevant, unless it is shown that Vikers' demotion was discriminatorily movitated. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings Of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number inparenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(2); 2(4,5); 3-14(6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,17,18 and 19, respectively). COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahssee, FL 32399-1570 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire McMurry & Asbell 1357 East Lafayette Street Suite C Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent whose Social Security Number is 356-48-9981 was certified as a law enforcement office by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 18, 1985 and was issued certificate number 12- 85-222-02. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. On or about April 23, 1987 Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of grand theft in the second degree, a violation Section 812.014, Florida Statutes and dealing in stolen property, a violation of Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was adjudged guilty of these offenses by the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida on April 23, 1987.
Recommendation Having considered the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order revoking the law enforcement officer certification (No. 12-85-222-02) of Respondent, Carey A. Reddick. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 15th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carey A. Reddick 15424 Loomis Harvey, IL 60426 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), by possessing not more than 20 grams of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional 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. At all times relevant, Respondent was a certified Florida Correctional Officer, and employed as a correctional officer at Everglades Correctional Institute ("ECI"). On March 31, 2011, shortly after reporting to work, Respondent was confronted by Inspectors George Montenegro, Philip Cataldi, and Darrel Grabner (all of whom are employed with the Office of the Inspector General within the Florida Department of Corrections). Respondent was requested to submit, and consented, to a pat down search of his person. The personal search did not reveal any contraband. Thereafter, Respondent was requested to submit, and again consented, to a search of his personal vehicle located in the ECI employee parking lot. Respondent was aware that, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-208.002, as a Department of Corrections employee, while on the ECI premises, he was subject to search or inspection of his person and vehicle.1/ Respondent escorted Inspectors Montenegro, Cataldi, and Grabner to his vehicle. Respondent acquired his vehicle, a 2006 Chevrolet Colorado, at an automobile auction in January 2011; the vehicle had been repossessed from its previous owner. Respondent opened the vehicle and then remained in close proximity, at the side of Inspector Montenegro. Inspector Cataldi, while searching Respondent's vehicle, located a small clear plastic bag.2/ Specifically, the bag was located on the floor and two to three inches back from the mid-point of the front passenger's seat. Within the bag Inspector Cataldi observed a green, leafy substance which, based on his law enforcement experience and training, he believed to be marijuana. Inspector Cataldi contemporaneously advised Inspector Grabner of the find and transferred the bag to Inspector Grabner's possession. Inspector Grabner observed residue that, based on his law enforcement training and experience, was consistent with marijuana. Inspector Grabner then proceeded to confirm his suspicion by utilizing the Duquenois-Levine reagent test, a presumptive field test designed to identify THC in marijuana.3/ Inspector Grabner, who has performed the same test on several hundred occasions, transferred the de minimis amount of suspicious material with tweezers into the test kit's pre- packaged ampoule, and followed the remaining directions as indicated in the package insert. After the sample was agitated, as directed, a presumptive positive result for THC was indicted by the color purple. The positive result was also observed by Inspector Montenegro. According to Inspector Grabner, the entirety of the suspicious material was consumed in the Duquenois-Levine testing process. The persuasive evidence establishes that the residue contained within the clear plastic bag was marijuana. Respondent was thereafter interviewed by Inspector Montenegro. At that time, Respondent denied any knowledge of the clear plastic bag or its contents. Respondent conceded that, during the approximately three-month period he had owned his car, he had cleaned and vacuumed the vehicle on multiple occasions. Respondent clarified, however, that when he acquired the repossessed vehicle from an automobile auction, the vehicle had not been detailed and was dirty. He further elaborated that, as he was the primary occupant of the vehicle, he had not attempted to vacuum the flooring underneath the passenger seat. Respondent credibly testified that he had no knowledge of the presence of the baggie or its contents.
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 Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 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 3rd day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Donna Bolton, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and dated August 9, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, certifying individuals for employment or appointment as a correctional officer and investigating complaints against individuals holding certificates as correctional officers in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 943.3195, Florida Statutes (2001). 1/ At the times pertinent to this matter, Respondent, Donna Bolton, was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer. In May 2002 Ms. Bolton was participating as a student in the State Officer Certification Examination (hereinafter referred to as the "SOCE") process at Miami-Dade Community College's School of Justice. Ms. Bolton was a student in a class designated as COLE 7, taught by Robert Lengel, Training Advisor. The class was part of the SOCE process. On the morning of May 9, 2002, Mr. Lengel gave the students in his COLE 7 class a quiz. The quiz consisted of having students, including Ms. Bolton, identify what ten codes that are routinely used by officers, codes 41 through 50, stood for. For example, students were to identify code 41 as standing for "sick or injured person." Another quiz had been given by Mr. Lengel in the COLE 7 class the prior week. That quiz required students to identify codes 31 through 40. Ms. Bolton had been absent on the date the quiz 2/ was given and, therefore, needed to make up the missed quiz. Therefore, Mr. Lengel asked Ms. Bolton if she would mind taking the quiz on codes 31 through 40 at the same time she took the quiz on codes 41 through 50. Ms. Bolton agreed and, therefore, on May 9, 2002, was given the quiz on both sets of codes. 3/ Although the quizzes taken by Ms. Bolton were part of the SOCE process, they were not the actual SOCE itself. As the students who were only required to take the quiz on codes 41 through 50 were completing their quiz, Regina C. Siedentopf, who was in charge of testing and curriculum and an adjunct part-time professor at Miami-Dade Community College, School of Justice, entered the room. 4/ After entering the room Ms. Siedentopf began preparing materials for a critique she was going to administer. Ms. Bolton was still taking the two quizzes when Ms. Siedentopf entered the room. Ms. Bolton had a small piece of paper between her legs, which Ms. Siedentopf noticed. Ms. Bolton was looking down at the piece of paper and Ms. Siedentopf saw Ms. Bolton do so. Ms. Siedentopf reported what she had seen to Mr. Lengel, who then asked everyone except Ms. Bolton and Ms. Siedentopf to leave the room. After the room was cleared, Ms. Bolton was asked to stand up, which she did. The piece of paper seen by Ms. Siedentopf was laying on the seat of Ms. Bolton's chair and Ms. Siedentopf retrieved it. Ms. Bolton's two quiz sheets were retrieved by Mr. Lengel. The piece of paper 5/ Ms. Bolton was looking at during the quiz was a small piece of lined paper with the explanation of what codes 31 through 50 stood for written on it. Ms. Bolton had been, therefore, looking at the answers to the quizzes she was engaged in taking. Although students are allowed to have the explanations for codes on a sheet of paper with them so that they can study the codes up until the moment of taking the quiz, students are not allowed to use these study sheets during the quiz. One of Ms. Bolton's quizzes retrieved by Mr. Lengel contained the correct explanation for codes 31 through 40 written on it. 6/ The second quiz contained the correct explanation for codes 41 through 46 and a partial explanation of code 47 written on it. Codes 48 through 50 were blank. 7/ When Mr. Lengel asked Ms. Bolton to give a written explanation of what had happened, Ms. Bolton essentially gave in the nature of "excuses" for her conduct, without explaining what that conduct was. 8/ After reading her statement, Mr. Lengel asked her to describe her actions with regard to the piece of paper that had been found. Ms. Bolton wrote: "I had the paper between my legs and I would look at it if I needed to." 9/ At hearing, Ms. Bolton admitted that she had the piece of paper with the answers to the two quizzes written on it located on the chair during the quiz. Denying that she had looked at the paper, however, Ms. Bolton explained that she had placed the paper on her chair because the paper, which she originally had in her pants pocket, irritated her. This explanation is unconvincing, given the size of the paper, and is, therefore, rejected. Her explanation also fails to explain why she looked at the paper while taking the quiz.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Ms. Bolton violated Section 943.1395(7); dismissing the allegation that she violated Rule 11B-30.009(3); dismissing the allegation that she violated Section 943.1395(6); and suspending her certification for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2003.
