The Issue Whether or not the Department of Revenue has accurately and appropriately assessed Petitioner tax, penalty, and interest for unlawful production of marijuana.
Findings Of Fact During 1988, Petitioner cultivated a patch of marijuana located in abandoned phosphate pits in Loncala, northwest Marion County. On or about September 16, 1988 Investigator Glenn Hurst of the Ocala Police Department discovered and seized the marijuana referred to above. The marijuana seized by Officer Hurst ranged in height from approximately twelve to fourteen feet. The marijuana seized covered a tract of four acres within the above- described land. The seized marijuana when weighed by Officer Hurst weighed 2,910 pounds. The marijuana, when seized, was cut off at the base of each plant with a machete so that the roots were not seized with the plants themselves. The property where the marijuana was seized was under lease to one Sammy Long of Sumter County. At the time of seizure of the subject marijuana, the property under lease to Sammy Long was owned by one Stanley Cowherd of Planters Boulevard, Boca Raton. The property under lease to Sammy Long was being utilized by him for the grazing of cattle. Fred Brown, a longtime friend of Petitioner and of Sammy Long, assisted Petitioner in the cultivation of the subject marijuana. Kim Nixon, or Kim Mixon, was also involved in the cultivation of the subject marijuana with Petitioner and Fred Brown. In early August of 1988, Fred Brown moved a small trailer onto the Cowherd/Long property and lived in it during August and during the fall. The trailer was located approximately a mile from the marijuana patch. There were two electric meters on the property. One of the electric meters served a well pump used to pump water into a cattle trough. The meter and pole were located within several feet of Brown's trailer. The meter was already active when Brown brought in his trailer. The other electric meter and pole were located close to the marijuana patch. The meter served a pump for watering the marijuana patch. The electric meter near the patch had been inactive until March 30, 1988 when Petitioner applied for an electric meter from the Sumter Electric Cooperative (SEC). Petitioner did not have any cattle grazing on the subject property either before or after he applied for the meter. Fred Brown did not have any cattle grazing on the subject property either before or after Petitioner applied for the electric meter. When Officer Hurst arrived at the marijuana patch on September 16, 1988, he found that the meter Petitioner activated served a pump which was connected to an underground sprinkler system. The underground sprinkler system was located within the subject marijuana patch. On the same date, Officer Hurst found an old water trough near the meter activated by Petitioner, but the trough water was stagnant. Thus, Petitioner had not used the meter to fill the trough near the marijuana patch. Petitioner's fingerprints were found on the original of the electric meter application. The fingerprints of Fred Brown were also found on the original of the same application. On April 26, 1986, Petitioner was arrested for cocaine possession. Fred Brown was arrested on August 15, 1985 for possession of marijuana over 20 grams. Petitioner had hunted doves during the 1980's on the Cowherd/Long property and was familiar with the property prior to the September 1988 seizure of the subject marijuana. Fred Brown had also hunted and been familiar with the same property prior to the September 1988 seizure. Petitioner was responsible for cultivating the subject marijuana seized on September 16, 1988 by Officer Hurst. Pursuant to Section 212.0505 F.S., the estimated retail value of the subject marijuana is $244,300.00 as stated on the Revised Assessment dated March 27, 1990, which was introduced as the Department of Revenue's sole exhibit. The Revised Assessment was sent to Petitioner's former attorney, Ed Scott, on March 27, 1990 and received by him on March 30, 1990. The retail price estimated by the Respondent was based upon 12% of the total marijuana weight of 2,910 pounds. The factor of 12% represented that portion of the marijuana plants which is considered, by the Department, as usable for consumption after processing of the plants. The Revised Assessment is mathematically correct. The Revised Assessment is legally valid. Per the Revised Assessment, the 20% tax was imposed upon the estimated retail value to arrive at a base tax of $48,860.00. Per the testimony of Kevin Jackson, the total amount of tax owed by Petitioner to the Department of Revenue amounts to $94,450.42, including penalties and interest, as of March 27, 1990. No surcharge was applicable in this case. Interest on the above amount continues to accrue at a rate of $16.06 per day, making the total as of the date of formal hearing $100,215.96. (TR-12- 13) The Revised Assessment is prima facie correct in these proceedings. It is noted that all of Petitioner's "admissions," upon which many of the foregoing findings of fact were based, were couched in terms of "marijuana," which is not named in any applicable statute. (The genus "cannabis" is defined at Section 893.02 F.S. "Cannabis" is the material to be taxed under Section 212.0505(1) F.S., which statute incorporates Section 893.02 F.S. by reference.) No evidence was presented to establish that "marijuana" and "cannabis" are the same substance and the Department of Revenue made no request to officially recognize that they are one and the same. However, because of Petitioner's admissions to the prima facie correctness of the Revised Assessment, its mathematical correctness, and its legal validity against him, no further findings with regard to the nature of marijuana are necessary.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order upholding the Revised Assessment, assessing the Petitioner $100,215.96 as of the date of formal hearing plus statutory interest continuing to accrue from date of formal hearing. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 14th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1589 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner submitted no PFOF. Respondent's PFOF: 1-37 Accepted as modified to more closely reflect the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Those matters not supported by the record have been rejected as contrary to the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee R. Rohe Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Robert Maynard Harris 13980 S.E. 80th Avenue Summerfield, Florida 32691 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Vicki Weber, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether petitioner's application for licensure as a professional teacher should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this case, respondent, Doug Jamerson, as Commissioner of Education, has proposed to deny an application for a teaching certificate filed on behalf of petitioner, Bryan S. Frederick, a thirty year old graduate of Elon College in North Carolina. As a ground, respondent contends that on applications filed with the Department of Education in 1991 and 1993, petitioner failed to disclose the fact that in December 1990 he had been arrested for possession of marijuana, and in January 1991 he had pled guilty to that offense. Petitioner disputed this allegation and timely requested a hearing. The critical facts giving rise to this dispute are as follows. Respondent has prepared an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate which must be completed and filed by those persons desiring a teaching certificate. On page 3 of the form is found the following question: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to S. 943.058 F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida law. On applications dated August 29, 1991, and April 2, 1993, which were filed with respondent, petitioner answered the foregoing question by checking the "NO" box. He also certified that all information in the two applications was "true, correct, and complete." With the assistance of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, in late 1993 respondent conducted a law enforcement background check on petitioner. The search revealed that on December 22, 1990, petitioner was arrested by the Brunswick, Georgia police department for possession of marijuana. On January 8, 1991, the solicitor for the state court of Glynn County, Georgia, filed an affidavit and accusation pertaining to that charge. On January 31, 1991, petitioner pled guilty to possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. For this, he was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to 12 months in jail, with all time suspended except for the one day served in jail. When he was assessed a fine in the amount of $300 plus costs, and he could not pay the fine, petitioner was sentenced to a week in jail. According to petitioner, however, no fine was ever paid, and except for the day when he was arrested, no time was served. After learning this information, respondent issued a Notice of Reasons on June 13, 1994, proposing to deny petitioner's most recent application for a teaching certificate for failing to disclose the arrest and conviction. Petitioner did not deny that the above events occurred. He explained, however, that on the day in question, he and a friend, Glenn Brinson, were driving to South Carolina for the Christmas holidays and stopped to eat at a fast food restaurant in Brunswick, Georgia (Glynn County) just off Interstate 95 (I-95). When returning onto I-95, Brinson was stopped by a law enforcement officer for making an illegal turn. After Brinson stepped out of the automobile, he was asked to show his driver's license and vehicle registration. Petitioner, who was a passenger, reached in the vehicle's glove compartment to retrieve the vehicle's registration and observed three marijuana joints. Having no prior knowledge that they were there, and being in what he describes as a state of panic, petitioner unwisely placed the three joints inside his hat. When the police officer noted that the license tag and registration had expired, he asked petitioner to step out of the car and submit to a search for weapons. Thereafter, the officer discovered the marijuana. Although petitioner denied that the contraband belonged to him, both he and Brinson were arrested for possession of marijuana. No traffic citations were issued. At hearing, Brinson acknowledged that the marijuana belonged to him, and not petitioner. Petitioner admits that he intentionally failed to disclose the arrest and conviction on his applications because he knew it would "blow his career" as a teacher. He says he could not afford an attorney to fight the charge and believed that by entering a plea of guilty with an explanation to the judge, the charge might be dropped. As it turned out, however, the judge simply accepted the plea and adjudicated him guilty of the offense. Petitioner does not work in the teaching profession at the present time but says he has a pending job opportunity should his application be approved. He desires a five-year professional teacher's license so that he can begin a full-time teaching career. Up to now, he has worked as a substitute teacher on a part-time basis. Except for this isolated incident on the part of petitioner, there is no evidence of any other misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for a period of one year. Thereafter, and upon reemployment, a license shall be issued but the first three years shall be on a probationary status. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4263 Respondent: 1-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Bryan S. Frederick 10960 Beach Boulevard, #10 Jacksonville, FL 32246 Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 3121 Killearney Way, Ste. G Tallahassee, FL 32308 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact In July 1975, in Hillsborough County, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on the charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. He was placed in the Pretrial Intervention Program, which he successfully completed. As a result, formal charges were either never filed or were dismissed by the State Attorney. On January 18, 1982, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to one charge of trafficking in excess of ten thousand pounds of cannabis in Hernando County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld by the court. Petitioner was placed on probation for twelve years. On August 1, 1983, in Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere to the offenses of aggravated assault with the use of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon on or about his person. The court accepted Petitioner's pleas. Adjudications of guilt were withheld on August 1, 1983. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years, to run concurrent with his probation in Hernando County, Florida. Petitioner's probation in the trafficking case was terminated early in Hernando County, Florida, on March 14, 1985. Petitioner's probation for the aggravated assault and the concealed weapon was terminated early in Pinellas County, Florida, on December 11, 1985. Petitioner was never adjudicated guilty of the charges the Division used as the basis for the denial of his application. As a result, he has not been convicted of any of these crimes as the term "conviction" is defined in Subsection 493.6101(8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted eleven letters of good moral character from people in the community who have known him throughout the years and are aware of the prior criminal charges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern License should be granted. ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Rejected. Contrary to prehearing stipulation. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #1. Reject. Contrary to fact only one charge of trafficking in the Information and only one nolo contendere plea on a charge of trafficking. As the basis given for licensure denial was alleged trafficking charges, the importation of cannabis charge and nolo contendere plea were not considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to Subsection 493.6118(3), Florida Statutes. See Hearing Officer finding #2. Accepted. See Hearing Officer findings #3 and #5. Accepted. See Hearing Officer finding #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph H. Ficarrotta, Esquire 600 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire Honorable Jim Smith General Counsel Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Tallahassee Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent David A. Avant, III, was arrested on October 16, 1989, and charged with one count of cultivation of marijuana (a third degree felony), and one count of possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). The charges concerned one marijuana plant which was found on Avant's property by a game warden. Avant was arrested when he picked up the plant to throw it over his fence. The marijuana plant did not belong to Avant and it was not on his property with his permission. A search of Avant's truck by game wardens did not reveal any tools, buckets, etc., indicating that he was, in fact, cultivating and/or caring for the marijuana plant. Avant accepted a plea agreement offered by the State Attorney to save the money and expenses that would be required for a trial. Avant accepted the state attorney's plea agreement for reasons of economics and convenience. Avant entered a plea of nolo contedere to one felony count of cultivation of marijuana and one misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1990, Petitioner, Judith Madeline Feldman (Feldman), purchased a $10 rock of cocaine from an undercover police detective during a police operation to combat street level cocaine dealing. The police found a pipe used to smoke cocaine in the console of Feldman's car. The pipe field tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the purchase of the cocaine and the possession of the cocaine pipe, Feldman was arrested and charged with purchasing cocaine, possessing cocaine, and possessing drug paraphernalia. In December 1990, Feldman pled nolo contendere to one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Adjudication was withheld, and Feldman was placed on probation for two years. By court order dated February 24, 1992, the records concerning the arrest on July 5, 1990, were sealed. In March 1996, Feldman filed an application with the Florida Department of Education for a Florida Educator's Certificate. The application form contains the following inquiry concerning the applicant's arrest record: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. Any record that has NOT been SEALED or EXPUNGED must be reported in this section. Feldman checked the No box on the arrest record section of the application. The application contained a section inquiring about sealed or expunged records. The application contained the following: Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation) and such record(s) was sealed or expunged? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. SEALED or EXPUNGED records MUST BE REPORTED pursuant ss. 943.0585 and 943.059, FS. However, the existence of such records WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED nor made part of your certification file which is public record. Feldman checked the No box on the sealed/expunged record section of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application should be granted with a one-year probation and appropriate conditions relating to drug screening and counseling during the probation period. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Judith M. Feldman 5030 26th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32966 Judith M. Feldman 1126 West Oglethorpe Highway Hinesville, Georgia 31313-5415
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondents' respective educator's certificates upon proof of violations of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes [gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude] and 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes [personal conduct which seriously reduces effectiveness as an employee of the school board], based upon allegations that Respondents possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Gregory J. Ramputi, Sr., held Florida educator's certificate 752393, covering Specific Learning Disabilities, which was valid through June 30, 1997. At all times material, he was employed at Forrest Heights High School in the Marion County School District. Respondent Joanna C. Ramputi, holds Florida educator's certificate 734502, covering Elementary Education, which is valid through June 30, 2000. At all times material, she was employed as a Fifth Grade Elementary School Teacher at Maplewood Elementary School in the Marion County School District. In November 1995, the Drug Task Force Headquarters in Marion County received a 50-pound package of marijuana from law enforcement officials in California. The package of marijuana was originally sent by Federal Express and addressed to the Ramputis' home address in Ocala, Florida. After they intercepted the package, Marion County Law Enforcement agents, in a covert operation, delivered it to the Ramputis' address on November 3, 1995. The Ramputis have been married for 18 years and in November 1995 had lived at the same address for approximately 12 years. As of November 3, 1995, Mrs. Ramputi had been certified as a teacher for one school year, and Mr. Ramputi was in his first year of teaching. The Ramputis have three children. On November 3, 1995, Gregory was 14; Jeffrey was 9; and Marina was 7. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Ramputi and his son Gregory left the house by the front door at approximately 7:00 a.m. Respondent Joanna Ramputi left the house by the front door at approximately 8:00 a.m. Marina had spent the night at her grandmother's house and was not there when the other family members left the residence. Jeffrey was the only person remaining at home after Mrs. Ramputi left. He remained at home only a short time until picked up by a second grandmother. Agent Edgar Leedy is employed by the Marion County Sheriff's Office. He has over 14 years' experience in law enforcement and has substantial experience investigating the cultivation and sale of marijuana. Agent Leedy is familiar with marijuana and is able to recognize harvested marijuana and marijuana plants. In conducting surveillance of the Respondents' residence on the morning of November 3, 1995, Agent Leedy observed a Ford Explorer arrive at the residence, park in the garage, and wait. The Ramputis' two boys "appeared" on the Ramputis' front lawn between the surveillance car's pass-bys. Gregory had been picked up at school, and both boys were dropped off by the second grandmother. No officer observed any communication between the children and the occupants of the Ford Explorer, but they were not continuously observed. It is not clear from the surveillance officers' testimony whether any of the Explorer's occupants had an opportunity to enter the house. The occupants of the Ford Explorer accepted the 50- pound package of marijuana from a law enforcement officer posing as a Federal Express driver and left the residence within seconds after receiving the package. The Explorer was immediately stopped by Special Agent Chris Crandon, and the package of marijuana was found unopened inside the vehicle. The occupants of the Explorer, including Mark Erp, were arrested. When asked where he was living, Mr. Erp indicated an address in Ocala different than the Respondents' address. He never indicated he was residing at the Respondents' home. Mark Erp is the son of Mr. Ramputi's female cousin. He is in his early twenties. He has a criminal record for dealing illegal drugs, as does his father. The father and mother, Mr. Ramputi's cousin, are divorced. Both live in Ocala, Florida. Mr. Ramputi has assisted Mark in a quasi-parental manner in the past and was aware of Mark's and his father's criminal records. Upon approaching the Respondents' residence, Agent Leedy immediately noticed a marijuana plant growing in a pot standing by the front door in plain view. Agent Leedy and Agent Brandt secured the residence to ensure that any potential evidence was not altered while a search warrant was being procured. The front door was opened to them by one of the Respondents' sons. After a search warrant was procured, the house was searched. Mr. Ramputi was telephoned at his school shortly after lunch and was requested to return home. He returned in mid- search. Agent Leedy was present in the living room, kitchen, and master bedroom suite in the course of about an hour. He conducted a search of the kitchen area of the Respondents' home. In the kitchen, he located an old meat scale with no marijuana residue on it. He also located a platter containing rolling papers and marijuana in the cabinet above the refrigerator in the kitchen. Agent Leedy was able to identify the marijuana and paraphernalia on the platter by sight and smell, but testified that no scent of marijuana use (smoke) was anywhere in the house. The platter and its contents were consistent with what law enforcement officers understand to be a "personal use platter." Agents Leedy and Crandon noted that marijuana cigarettes/roaches (partially burned marijuana cigarettes) were located throughout the house, including the living room. Agent Crandon has been employed by the Marion County Sheriff's Office for over 16 years and has been in the field of narcotics and narcotic detection since 1990. He has substantial experience in dealing with marijuana cases and is able to detect marijuana by sight and/or smell. He assisted in searching the master bedroom suite, which included two closets, a master bedroom, and a master bath. He also was responsible for collecting, testing, and documenting all seized evidence, wherever originally located throughout the house. Another phrase for his involvement would be "collecting, bagging, and tagging." Agent Crandon located a marijuana cigarette in plain view on top of the master bedroom dresser and a "bong" in plain view sitting on the bathroom counter. A "bong" is a pipe commonly used for smoking marijuana. The bong contained marijuana residue. Also found in the master bedroom were 175 grams of marijuana in the Respondents' dresser in two separate bags. This amount of marijuana is consistent with a "stash" for sale to others in smaller amounts. Marijuana possession in excess of 20 grams constitutes a felony. Also found in the master bedroom were approximately six quarter-ounce bags of marijuana, located in the bottom drawer of the night-stand next to Respondents' bed, together with a ledger which the officers interpreted as describing transactions of drug sales. This method of packaging is consistent with amounts for individual use sales. Approximately $5,500 in cash was found underneath the bottom drawer of the same night-stand. The envelope had been laid on the floor under the bottom drawer of the night-stand and bore some mathematical computations. The top drawer of the same night-stand contained hemostats a/k/a "clips" (devices commonly used to hold marijuana cigarettes while they are smoked), together with a small amount of marijuana in a plastic bag. Mr. Ramputi's closet was on the right of a small entryway within the master bedroom suite. Mrs. Ramputi's closet was on the left of this entryway. Both closets contained the Ramputis' respective clothing. Approximately $32,000.00 in cash was found in Mr. Ramputi's closet. It was contained in two small brown paper bags which were placed inside an unlocked and unlockable white canvas draw-string bag at the bottom of the closet with clothing and Mr. Ramputi's High School Annual. There was no lock on the closet door or any way to secure it. The cash within the two small brown bags was separated into $15,000+ in one bag and $16,000+ in the other. Each bag contained several stacks of $1,000 each, secured with rubber bands. According to the officers who testified, this method of packaging cash in $1,000 stacks is consistent with the way drug dealers keep track of cash transactions. The Respondents asserted ownership of the $37,000 cash found in the master bedroom suite, but denied any knowledge of, or connection to, the marijuana. However, both Respondents conceded that they had, at all times, access to the master bedroom suite. In addition to the Respondents' cash, many of their personal belongings were located in close proximity to the marijuana in the master bedroom suite. Personal belongings and mail addressed to Joanna Ramputi under her maiden name were in the night-stand in which marijuana was located. Mail in the Respondents' names was located elsewhere in the master bedroom, together with financial documents and tax certificates. An address book with Mark Erp's name inside, giving a Marion County address, was also located in the master bedroom. Presumably, this address book belonged to the Respondents. Mr. Ramputi's steroids, in unopened glass vials, and syringes for the administration of the steroids were also located in the master bedroom. A set of electric curlers and a woman's makeup bag were on the bathroom counter next to the bong. Agent Crandon was able to identify the marijuana found in the bedroom by sight and smell. In collecting, tagging, and bagging the two amounts of cash and the marijuana-related items from the house, Agent Crandon handled all of the listed items, including marijuana roaches, clips, the outside of baggies, and the cash with its paper and canvas containers. He did not recall if he wore gloves during this procedure, but related that if he had worn gloves, he would have worn the same pair of gloves the entire time he was in the Respondents' house. He did not open the baggies and actually sift through any marijuana. Agent Crandon conducted field reagent tests upon the marijuana-related items throughout the house resulting in positive findings that the substances were, in fact, marijuana. Agent Crandon dumped the cash out of its respective containers. He counted and photographed the cash from the closet on the bed. He counted and photographed the cash from the night- stand on the floor of the master bedroom suite. He then replaced the cash in the brown paper bags and envelope respectively and bagged and tagged them separately from any marijuana-related items. Subsequent testing at the Task Force's offices revealed that latent finger prints had not been recovered or that any fingerprints recovered were of insufficient quality to make a positive identification of anyone. All packages of cash located in the Respondents' residence (the two brown bags from the canvas bag in the closet and the paper envelope under the night stand) were forwarded for testing to the Marion County Sheriff's Office K-9 (dog) Unit. At the Sheriff's Office, the seized cash was stored separately from the seized marijuana. Officer Whitman, who did not testify, purportedly placed seized cash from each of the three separate bundles in three separate bags and neutral cash from the Sheriff's Fiscal Division in three other bags. The Sheriff's Fiscal Division gets its money from banks and takes no special steps to purify or cleanse the cash. Law enforcement witnesses conceded that a great deal of cash that is in general circulation has marijuana residue on it and further conceded that it is possible, under some circumstances, for someone who has touched marijuana in the course of an investigation to leave marijuana residue on cash seized at the same time. Talon, a trained dog of the K-9 Unit working with Officer Pistarelli, alerted on all three of the bags which Officer Whitman told Officer Pistarelli contained cash seized from the Ramputis' home. The K-9 sniff-test was not conclusive of guilt, nor is it, by itself, sufficient to constitute "probable cause" to arrest the owner of the money on drug-related charges. However, Agent Crandon testified that based upon his experience and the totality of the circumstances of this case, the cash claimed by the Respondents was connected to the drugs located in their master bedroom suite. The search warrant for Respondents' home was ultimately ruled defective. The criminal arrest and prosecution records were ultimately expunged. After the criminal case(s) against them was dismissed, Respondents asserted ownership of the $37,000 in cash, and it was returned to them. At formal hearing herein, Respondents asserted that the cash was not drug-related, but had been intended by them for ongoing repair and construction in their home. Respondents maintained that from the latter part of October until November 3, 1995, they had been sleeping in the living room of their home, and their two sons, Gregory and Jeffrey, had been sleeping in the master bedroom. They asserted that Mark Erp had temporarily moved into the master bedroom with their sons 4-6 days before November 3, 1995, because he was "having trouble with his girlfriend." Mrs. Ramputi testified that she provided a roll-out bed for Mark Erp, which normally was kept in her closet within the master bedroom suite. The Ramputis acknowledged possession of the injectable prescription steroid vials and syringes in their bedroom, stating that these had last been used a year before by Mr. Ramputi's mother for Mr. Ramputi's skin condition, but they maintained they had never seen or smelled anything in their home that would indicate marijuana use or possession. They denied any knowledge of the presence of marijuana or drug paraphernalia in their home. Specifically, they asserted that the kitchen was Mrs. Ramputi's territory solely, and each denied ever looking in the kitchen cabinet above the refrigerator, wherein the "personal use" platter had been discovered. It was the Ramputis' mutual contention that at all times material, their master bathroom was under construction with torn-up floor and bad plumbing in the shower, and was unusable; that their clothing had been removed to Marina's room; that their personal toiletries had been removed to the hall bathroom; that the hall bathroom adjoining the boys' bedroom was also under construction; that the rug and a wall of the boys' bedroom had been affected by water leakage from the hall bathroom; that the rug in the boys' bathroom had been pulled up; and that the smell of mildew was noticeable in the boys' bedroom. They further contended that all six occupants of the home used the hall bathroom and that no one used the bathroom in the master bedroom suite. According to the Ramputis, they had given up their bedroom for their boys, and ultimately for Mark Erp, because they did not want to have their children sleeping in the living room in the event guests came by and so that their children could go to sleep earlier than the adults did. They contended that the television in the master bedroom did not receive objectionable programming from HBO, whereas adult HBO programs could be viewed by adults on the living room television. According to Respondents, they had slept on the living room couch for some period of time and expected to do so until repairs had been made to the hall bathroom and boys' bedroom. Purportedly, the $32,000 found in Mr. Ramputi's closet was the result of a real estate sale which had closed twenty- three months earlier on December 29, 1993. Purportedly, this amount originally had been deposited into the Respondents' joint bank account in 1993, but Mrs. Ramputi had loaned it to her brother, Sal, in cash, so as to assist him in his business. When her brother repaid Mrs. Ramputi, also in cash, she had turned the cash over to her husband, who, in order to keep his wife from loaning the money back to her brother, had hidden it in the bottom of his closet. Mr. Ramputi stated that his reason for not putting the money in a bank was because he believed his wife was more likely to take money out of their joint bank account than out of his closet and that he needed the cash on hand to pay for building permits and construction supplies and to pay contractors during the house renovation. Mr. Ramputi's explanation for the cash under the night- stand was that he had earmarked this $5,500 amount, which the couple claimed had been received in cash accumulated from parental loans and gifts, for new windows. Respondents in these types of proceedings are not required to testify against themselves, but once they elect to take the stand in their own defense, their testimony is subject to the same tests of credibility as that of any other witness. Herein, the greater weight of the credible evidence renders Respondents' denial of knowledge and possession of marijuana and their explanation for the large amounts of cash they kept in their home incredible for the following reasons. Throughout the search, Agent Leedy was, at various times, present in the living room, master bedroom, and master bathroom. He observed no type of construction occurring in the residence, including but not limited to any construction or removed flooring in the master bathroom. Deputy Brad Smith was also present during the search of the Respondents' residence. He did not see any evidence of construction or repairs inside the residence. Officer Crandon saw no construction in the master bedroom. Mr. Ramputi testified that his brother, Sam Ramputi, had done most of the construction on the home. Sam Ramputi lives in Ocala, Florida, but was not called to verify the existence of construction in the Ramputis' home on or about November 3, 1995. The Ramputis offered no building permits in evidence, although Mrs. Ramputi testified that a new roof had just been completed the week before the search and seizure. They produced no bills for the new roof. Mr. Ramputi produced no estimates for the windows they intended to add. Respondents produced no prescription to verify their testimony with regard to the use of the steroids and did not call the grandmother who allegedly administered the shots. Respondents conceded that the sofa in the living room is not a sleeper sofa. Marijuana roaches were found even in the living room, where Respondents were purportedly sleeping. Three officers testified that they did not observe blankets, pillows, or anything at all to indicate that Respondents' living room was being used as temporary sleeping quarters. Agents Crandon and Leedy, who entered the master bedroom suite, did not observe or locate any children's clothing, toys, comic books, or other items consistent with children residing in the master bedroom suite, but they did locate items consistent with access and use by the Respondents, such as makeup, mail, and clothing. No personal belongings of Mark Erp were located in the master bedroom or anywhere in the house at the time of the search. No roll-away cot was located in Mrs. Ramputi's closet or elsewhere in the house. Mr. Ramputi testified that Mark Erp confessed to him that the marijuana found in the Ramputis' home belonged to Mark Erp. Mark Erp is currently residing in Ocala, Florida. The formal hearing was held in Ocala, Florida. However, Mr. Erp was not subpoenaed to testify. Mrs. Ramputi testified that one of the grandmothers had signed a statement to verify that Mark Erp was residing in the Respondents' home at the time of the search and seizure. However, that grandmother was not called to testify nor was her statement produced at formal hearing. The grandmother's alleged inability to speak English is not a credible reason not call her. Respondents did not call their children to verify their occupancy of the master bedroom, Mark Erp's occupancy of the master bedroom, or the presence of Mark Erp in the house on November 3, 1995. Respondents offered no explanation why their sons, ages 14 and 9, would not have reported to them the presence of a bong, hemostats, and marijuana in the master bedroom suite. Mr. and Mrs. Ramputi both testified that their parents had given them cash "for windows" at the end of October 1995. The parents of each of the Respondents live in Ocala. The parents were not called to verify the Respondents' testimony on this issue. In light of the evidence as a whole, it is not credible that this family, however closely knit, were regularly and legitimately transferring multiple thousands of dollars of cash among themselves. It is likewise incredible that anyone would pay for contracting work on one's home in multiple thousands of dollars in cash. Mrs. Ramputi testified that the federal Internal Revenue Service had investigated the Respondents for 13 months, during which time it had access to all Respondents' financial records and all financial records of Mrs. Ramputi's brother, Sal, and that the Internal Revenue Service then sent the Respondents a letter saying that the Agency was satisfied and was closing the case. However, this alleged letter from the Internal Revenue Service was not produced at formal hearing. Respondents produced no bank records to show withdrawals by Mrs. Ramputi between the December 29, 1993, closing and the November 3, 1995, search and seizure. They produced nothing to document any loans to her brother Sal or his repayments to her. Mrs. Ramputi's brother lives in Ocala but was not called as a witness to verify the several alleged transfers of $32,000 in cash from the Respondents' joint bank account to him and back to Mrs. Ramputi. He was not called to verify the Internal Revenue Service's favorable disposition of the situation. Mr. Ramputi's explanation of why he did not return $32,000 cash into the couple's joint bank account lacks credibility. He was aware at all times that it was possible for him to open a bank account solely in his own name so as to prevent withdrawals by Mrs. Ramputi. Unlike the safety of a bank account in Mr. Ramputi's name alone, his unlocked closet was not a reasonable precaution to prevent Mrs. Ramputi from using the cash for her own purposes or to prevent theft by any visitors, most significantly, Mark Erp, if Mark Erp were indeed present. Respondents had access to and control over all areas of the house where marijuana or cash was found. Each testified that s/he had not given Mark Erp a key to the house. Respondents testified that they have had only favorable and supportive comments from all prior educator/employers, community leaders, parents, and students whom they have taught. Mrs. Ramputi has remained employed almost full time as a substitute teacher since the dismissal of the criminal charges in July 1996. Mr. Ramputi has been unable to find employment as a teacher since his arrest. However, upon the testimony of Roddy Michele and James Nowell, it is clear that if the Respondents are determined to be guilty of possession of marijuana, their effectiveness as school teachers would be seriously reduced. Although Mr. Michele emphasized that his primary concern was with notoriety through newspaper and other media coverage of the search and seizure, Respondents' arrest, and their subsequent suppression hearing, it remains a matter of law that notoriety, of itself, is not an offense upon which the Respondents' teaching certificates may be disciplined.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a Final Order that: Finds Gregory J. Ramputi, Sr., not guilty of illegal possession of steroids; Finds Gregory J. Ramputi, Sr., guilty of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and thus guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(c) and 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes; Prohibits Gregory J. Ramputi, Sr., from applying to renew his teaching certificate for two years; Finds Joanna C. Ramputi guilty of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and thus guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(c) and 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes; and Revokes Joanna C. Ramputi's teaching certificate for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David B. Kundin, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Dept. of Education 325 W. Gaines St., Ste. 224-E Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On January 8, 1980, Johnny L. and Robert J. Mims held license No. 27-75 2COP for the Libra Lounge at 2409 Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida. Larry Stevens, a beverage officer in petitioner's employ, visited the Libra Lounge in order to make a routine inspection. Accompanying him was James Loman, a deputy sheriff in the Escambia County Sheriff's Department. They arrived about half past one o'clock on the afternoon of January 8, 1980, and found the door standing open. Inside, Carlos Roncelli Mims was standing behind the bar. Carlos Roncelli Mims had spent the night of January 7, 1980, at the lounge, and had been there when Johnny L. Mims closed the place up. Also on the premises were a man and woman drinking beer, who left when Officer Stevens and Deputy Loman began questioning Carlos. Officer Stevens asked for the owner or manager and Carlos Roncelli Mims telephoned Robert Mims, who arrived about 15 minutes later. In the interim, Officer Stevens inspected the premises, and discovered a shallow cardboard box to the left of the cash register. The box was open and in plain sight. It was accessible to someone working the bar but was not accessible to the public. In the box was a clear bag of what appeared to be marijuana, a number of black capsules, and a folded piece of tinfoil, containing some white powder. In a separate room housing the pool table, there was a marijuana cigarette butt. Carlos was arrested for possession of narcotics. When Carlos left the premises, he took money with him. Later, a chemist analyzed the apparent marijuana and confirmed that the substance was cannabis. He also analyzed the contents of the foil packet and established that the powder was a small quantity of phencyclidine. Carlos Roncelli Mims, a nephew of the respondents, was born on March 5, 1962. He is employed by the Pensacola Port Authority. He had his uncles' permission to sleep on the premises of the Libra Lounge, in exchange for cleaning up and doing other chores. Carlos was never paid any money for this work. He was authorized to call the police if somebody should break in. His uncles did not authorize him to open the business himself at any time, nor was he authorized to serve beverages or handle money.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondents' license in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100). DONE AND ENTERED this 2d day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny L. and Robert J. Mims t/a Libra Lounge 2409 Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent may be disciplined for failure to maintain the qualifications established by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which requires that a correctional officer have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Kalangie J. Serrano, is a state certified correctional officer holding certificate No. 186788. In the early morning hours of February 9, 2002, Respondent was observed by Orlando Police Department Officer Jonathan Cute sitting in the driver's seat of Respondent's automobile. As Officer Cute approached the vehicle, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle and observed smoke in the passenger compartment of the automobile. As Officer Cute approached the vehicle, he noticed Respondent place something onto the center console of the vehicle. As Respondent exited the vehicle at Officer Cute's request, Officer Cute observed and smelled a cloud of marijuana smoke in the interior of the vehicle and determined that the object placed on the vehicle's console was a red metal pipe typical, in his experience, of the type of pipe used for smoking marijuana. Noting the presence of a burning residue in the pipe and suspecting it to be marijuana, Officer Cute performed a field test on the substance which tested positive determining that the substance was cannabis. Officer Cute arrested Respondent and charged him with possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. No admissible evidence was received as to any determination of the charges filed against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Kalangie J. Serrano, violated Subsection 893.147(1), Florida Statutes, and, as a result, failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that he be placed on probation for two years, be required to submit to drug testing, be enrolled in drug prevention education, and such other associated penalties as Petitioner deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kalangie J. Serrano 4340 Lauren Lane Titusville, Florida 32780 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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner. On the evening of July 13, 2010, the Respondent was observed driving erratically by Deputy Mark Buswell, an officer of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. After observing the Respondent driving for a distance, Deputy Buswell executed a traffic stop, at which time he smelled the odor of alcohol on the Respondent. In response to Deputy Buswell's inquiry, the Respondent denied having consumed alcohol. Deputy Buswell asked the Respondent to step out of the truck and observed that the Respondent was unsteady on his feet and swaying. Deputy Buswell then administered a series of sobriety tests to the Respondent. Based on his observations, and his training and experience as a law enforcement officer, Deputy Buswell believed that the Respondent had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Buswell arrested the Respondent for DUI, a violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ After the arrest, Deputy Buswell twice asked the Respondent to submit to a breath alcohol test, and, on both occasions, the Respondent declined to take the test. The Respondent had previously been arrested for DUI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order permanently revoking the certification of Derek C. Floyd as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2012.
