The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
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 Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 June 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b), 2/ by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) or (7); and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Correctional Certificate 92776 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections. Respondent married Ms. Minnie Williams on May 6, 1988, in Lake City, Florida. They had one child, Blake, in 1990. They separated in September, 1993, and were divorced in November, 1994. The court awarded custody of the child to Respondent. In 1988, Respondent was in the Navy, stationed aboard the USS Saratoga, and based in Virginia. After Respondent and Ms. Williams were married, Respondent returned to Virginia. Ms. Williams remained in Lake City for several months before moving to Virginia to live with Respondent. Approximately one year after the marriage, problems developed in the marriage. Ms. Williams did not assist in the daily needs of the household, was unable to stay in school, and was not able to keep a job. Respondent's efforts to solve the marital problems were unsuccessful. His attempts at counseling failed to improve communications between the couple. In late 1989, Respondent informed Ms. Williams that the marriage was not going to work. He told Ms. Williams that he thought they should divorce. Ms. Williams returned to her mother's home in Lake City. Respondent's ship was transferred to Mayport, Florida in 1990. Ms. Williams did not want a divorce and did not want to separate from Respondent. Sometime in 1990, Respondent left the Navy and obtained employment with the Department of Corrections. Between 1990 and 1993, the couple maintained the marriage in an effort to provide a home for their child. Whenever Respondent attempted to discuss divorce, it resulted in a heated argument. Ms. Williams frequently threatened to "ruin" Respondent. The Wrench On March 9, 1993, Respondent counseled a co-worker who was distraught over her husband's affair. Respondent learned that the woman with whom the husband was having an affair was Respondent's wife. Respondent went home to pack his clothes and leave home. An argument ensued regarding Ms. William's infidelity. Respondent packed some of his personal belongings and left home. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on the same day, Respondent returned home for more of his personal belongings. Respondent was still very angry. Respondent and Ms. Williams became involved in another argument. During the argument, Respondent continued to pack his things. He retrieved a large wrench from his closet. Respondent was walking down the hallway leading from the bedroom to the front door. Respondent had the wrench in one hand and other personal belongings in the other hand. Respondent told Ms. Williams that this time he was leaving for good. It was approximately 12:10 a.m. on March 10. Ms. Williams told Respondent that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. Respondent turned abruptly around to face Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams was startled and frightened. She ran into the bedroom from the hallway where she scraped her leg on a jagged corner of the bed, fell, and struck her right hand on the open sliding glass door of the bedroom. Respondent never struck Ms. Williams in any way, with his hands, the wrench, or otherwise. The injuries to Ms. Williams were minor. Respondent left. Ms. Williams spent the night in her car. The next day she reported the incident to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff"). Ms. Williams reported to the investigating officer that Respondent beat her with his hands and a wrench for about 15 minutes. The injuries observed by the investigating officer were not consistent with such a beating. The injuries to Ms. Williams were consistent with a trip and fall. Ms. Williams had a three inch cut on her left leg at approximately the height of the corner of the bed. She also had a bruise on her right hand and some swelling. Ms. Williams did not seek medical treatment for her injuries. On March 16, 1993, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. On April 5, 1993, Respondent entered into a Misdemeanor Intervention Agreement scheduled for six months. The agreement was terminated early on September 3, 1993. Respondent established a separate residence. Respondent had no further relations with Ms. Williams except those necessary for the care of their child. The Lip Respondent resided with his girlfriend and shared her car. Ms. Williams used Respondent's truck to commute to work. On March 27, 1994, Respondent went to Ms. Williams house to pick up clothes and diapers for his son. Ms. Williams routinely failed to deliver those items when she dropped off their child to Respondent. Ms. Williams was not home, and Respondent waited for her. When Ms. Williams arrived in Respondent's truck, the truck was driven by Ms. Williams' boyfriend. Respondent was angered that Ms. Williams' boyfriend was driving Respondent's truck. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend attempted to turn the truck around and leave. Respondent ran behind the truck so that the vehicle could not be turned around. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend were angry that Respondent blocked their exit. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend got out of the truck. The boyfriend and Respondent engaged in a physical altercation. During the altercation, Ms. Williams attacked Respondent. She hit and kicked him and jumped on his back. Either Respondent or the boyfriend inadvertently struck Ms. Williams in her lip. She went to the Lake City Medical Center for medical treatment. At the Medical Center, Ms. Williams reported the incident to the Sheriff. Her injuries were minor. On April 6, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. He entered a plea of nolo contendere. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on supervised probation for one year. On May 27, 1994, the supervised probation was converted to unsupervised probation with the provision that Respondent was not to contact Ms. Williams. The Window On April 4, 1994, Ms. Williams drove to Respondent's house to pick up their child. Respondent's girlfriend and mother were inside the house with him. Respondent went outside the house to the car. Ms. Williams got out of the car. She became belligerent and verbally abusive toward Respondent. Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave. Ms. Williams backed away from Respondent, struck the car window with her posterior, and the window broke. Ms. Williams became angrier. She threatened to have Respondent "messed up." Ms. Williams left with her child and went to her aunt's house. She telephoned the Sheriff and filed a complaint. On April 25, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with criminal mischief. Respondent determined that the criminal charges would be dropped if he paid for the window. Respondent gave Ms. Williams a money order for $159. On May 25, 1994, the state attorney filed a nolle prosequi declining to prosecute Respondent. In November, 1994, Respondent obtained custody of the only child of the marriage with Ms. Williams. Respondent has retained custody of the child. The Knife On February 1, 1995, Ms. Williams went to Respondent's house to deliver some clothes for their son. They went into the kitchen. Ms. Williams asked about reconciliation. Respondent stated that he wanted nothing to do with Ms. Williams. She became angry. She told him that she was going to "fix him." Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave, and she did. On February 2, 1995, Ms. Williams telephoned the Sheriff. She claimed Respondent had threatened her with a knife and beaten her for 15 to 30 minutes when she was at his home the previous day. Respondent did not batter Ms. Williams. He did not threaten her with a dangerous weapon. The investigating officer observed no injuries on Ms. Williams. She did not seek medical treatment for the alleged injuries even though she knew she was pregnant at the time with her boyfriend's child. A neighbor observed Ms. Williams leaving Respondent's home on February 1, 1995. She had no observable injuries and was gesturing to Respondent as she left. The state attorney charged Respondent with two misdemeanors, battery and exhibiting a dangerous weapon. The court found respondent not guilty of the latter offense but guilty of the former. The court sentenced Respondent to one year of unsupervised probation with the special condition that there be no contact with Ms. Williams. The Handgun On February 10, 1995, Respondent and Ms. Williams were driving in separate cars near the Gateway Plaza. Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office. She alleged that Respondent drove beside her and pointed a handgun at her. The state attorney charged Respondent with improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. On October 3, 1995, the court found Respondent not guilty of the offense. Respondent did not exhibit a dangerous weapon. Paternity In 1995, Ms. Williams became pregnant with the child of her boyfriend. Ms. Williams charged Respondent with paternity. Paternity tests proved that Respondent was not the father of the child. Respondent had not had sex with Ms. Williams since 1993. Other Matters After their divorce, Ms. Williams repeatedly threatened Respondent by stating that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. She filed approximately 20 complaints against Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. She also contacted the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to report Respondent for child abuse. Respondent did not report the criminal actions filed by Ms. Williams to his employer and received a written reprimand for not reporting the criminal matters. Respondent is still employed by the Department of Corrections.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(6) and (7) and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue This is a case in which, by Administrative Complaint served on Respondent on September 24, 1985, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission seeks to revoke Certificate Number C-8690, which was issued to Respondent on April 10, 1981. As grounds for the proposed revocation it is asserted that Respondent lacks good moral character and is therefore in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 10, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number C-8690. Sometime on February 24 or 25, 1984, while the owners were away from home, the Respondent, Alton L. Moore, without the permission of the owners, broke into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Fred McElroy at the KOA Campground in Starke, Florida, and stole various items of personal property belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Fred McElroy, including cash in the amount of $600 or $700, a canvas bag, some checks and business records, and some jewelry. Alton L. Moore broke into the home for the purpose of stealing personal property and had no intention of returning the stolen property.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's Certificate Number C-8690. DONE AND ORDERED this 16 day of June 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June 1986. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted as background and introduction information. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraphs: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14: Rejected as constituting unnecessary subordinate details (even though supported by competent substantial evidence). Consistent with these proposed findings, I have made the essential finding that the Respondent committed the crimes described in these paragraphs. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (None were submitted.) COPIES FURNISHED: Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Alton L. Moore Route 7, Box 544 Lake City, Florida 32055
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Larry A. Labay, failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b). If so, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer licensed by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. He received his correctional certificate, number 285033, on July 17, 2009. Respondent was employed by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) from February 16, 2010, through July 18, 2011. Respondent was in a relationship with a woman named Marissa Meszaros. Their relationship began in approximately May of 2011. Ms. Meszaros was the subject of an investigation by the narcotics unit of CCSO, which believed that she might be involved in selling narcotics. A confidential informant had been used to make controlled purchases of controlled substances from Ms. Meszaros. During the course of the investigation into Ms. Meszaros, the drug task force learned that a possible CCSO employee was at the scene of some of the controlled purchases. A video recording of some of the buys showed Respondent directly in front of an illegal drug transaction. As a result, Respondent’s conduct was also investigated. On June 27, 2011, Respondent and Ms. Meszaros were observed riding in Respondent’s red 2000 Dodge pickup truck in the Orange Park area. They were observed leaving the Orange Park mall and going into an area known as a high drug-traffic area, and then south on Blanding Boulevard toward Labay’s residence. Once Respondent left Orange Park and returned from Duval County to Clay County, Detective Mark Maertz stopped Labay’s vehicle because the tag for his truck had expired. Detective Maertz was part of the CCSO’s canine unit. Once the truck was stopped, Detective Maertz deployed his dog, Rex, who alerted to the presence of narcotics. Detective Maertz requested that Respondent and Ms. Meszaros exit the car, and they did so. Ms. Meszaros was found to have crack cocaine in her bra. (A female officer dealt with her at the scene.) Also discovered were trace amounts of a green leafy substance throughout the floorboard on the driver’s side of the truck. The substance was in plain view of anyone getting into the driver’s side of car. As a result of their training and experience, both Detective Maertz, who stopped the car, and Sergeant Shawn Gordon, who actually conducted the search of the truck, recognized the substance as marijuana or cannabis, also referred to as “shake.” Respondent was detained and questioned following the traffic stop. He was questioned after being given his Miranda rights. He also gave consent to a search of his residence. At the beginning of the interview, Respondent denied ever using drugs or seeing Ms. Meszaros using drugs. However, after some questioning, Respondent admitted to giving Meszaros money to buy drugs and seeing her use them. A search of his residence resulted in the discovery of a “bong,” or pipe used to smoke marijuana, in the common bathroom, and a crack pipe in the master bedroom. The marijuana pipe was in plain view in the hall bathroom. The crack pipe was in a cigarette box on the dresser in the master bedroom. Respondent told the detectives who questioned him that they would find the drug paraphernalia in his home. The home was owned by Respondent. Ms. Meszaros had recently moved in with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter an Order finding that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character as defined in rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b) in violation of section 943.1395(7), and revoking his certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey Phillip Dambly, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Labay (Address of record) Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on October 1, 1987, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 83658. Respondent has been employed since that time by the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, assigned to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Institute, the stockade. He is also certified by the Commission as an instructor and has taught at the Academy. Respondent is a very professional, "by-the-book" correctional officer. He is considered by his supervisors to be an excellent correctional officer who performs his job efficiently. He has received numerous commendations while at the Department, including a humanitarian award and the Department's monthly recognition award. His annual evaluations rate him consistently above satisfactory or outstanding but for some need for improvement in attendance. January 28, 1994, was Respondent's birthday. He and Pamela Gray, the woman with whom Respondent then lived, walked on the beach together and then went to Denny's Restaurant. While there, they encountered three young women whose car had been stolen while they were inside Denny's. Respondent offered them a ride home, and they accepted. Respondent, in Gray's car, and Gray drove the women to Hamlet Estates Apartments and entered through the security gate. Once inside the complex, Respondent and Gray were walking the women to their apartment when they saw a juvenile walking around looking in the recreation room. They commented to each other that it was too late for a child that age to be out. Since it was after 3:00 a.m., Respondent and the others approached the juvenile who appeared to be 10 to 12 years old. Respondent asked him why he was out at that time of the morning, and the juvenile said he lived there. Respondent asked him which apartment he lived in, and the juvenile stated an apartment number. The young women with Respondent and Gray advised that the apartment complex used letters, not numbers, on the apartments there. Respondent asked the juvenile to show Respondent where he lived, and Respondent and the boy walked off together. The boy was unable to identify an apartment where he lived. The boy was also evasive about his name and telephone number. Respondent and the juvenile returned to where Gray was waiting for them. The young women went to their apartment, and Respondent and Gray drove the juvenile to the security guard booth at the entrance to the complex. Gray waited in the car, while Respondent and the juvenile walked over to the booth and spoke to the security guard. Respondent identified himself to security guard Marvel Williams as Officer Ford and showed her his correctional officer badge. Respondent asked Williams if the juvenile lived there, and she confirmed that he did not. Respondent used the telephone to call the telephone number the juvenile told him was his parents' telephone number, but the number was disconnected. Respondent was concerned about leaving the juvenile at the complex where the juvenile had no right to be. He was concerned that something might happen to the child or that the child might be intending wrongdoing. Respondent then called the Miami-Dade Police Department precinct nearby and requested that a patrol car be sent to pick up the juvenile and take him home. Respondent was told that no unit was available to come there. Respondent then decided that he would drive the juvenile to the precinct and leave him there until the police could take him home. He told the juvenile to come with him, and they walked over to Gray's car. Respondent opened the back door, and the juvenile got in. Respondent then got in the car and drove out of the complex. Because the security guard had some concern about a child going somewhere with a stranger, she copied down Respondent's license number and a description of the vehicle as Respondent exited the complex. She then pushed the redial button on the telephone to verify that Respondent had in fact called the police and discovered that he had. She then wrote an incident report describing what had happened. When Respondent arrived at Station 6, he, Gray, and the juvenile went inside. Respondent and the juvenile approached the desk officer, and Gray sat down in the waiting area. Respondent introduced himself as Officer Ford and showed the police officer his correctional officer badge and identification. He then told the police officer what had transpired and requested that the police take the juvenile home. At the request of the police officer, Respondent wrote down his name, his badge number, his identification number, and his beeper number. The desk officer then buzzed the door to the back area to unlock it and allow Respondent and the juvenile to enter the back area of the station. Respondent held the door for the desk officer and the juvenile, and the juvenile walked into the back area. Respondent told the desk officer that he was tired and was going home. He then walked out of the station, and he and Gray drove home. The desk officer did not try to stop Respondent from leaving. Not knowing what to do next, the desk officer contacted his supervisor, asking him to come to the station to deal with the juvenile. When his supervisor arrived, he described what had happened. In doing so, he told his supervisor that Respondent was an off-duty police officer. This erroneous assumption arose from the fact that Miami-Dade police officer badges and correctional officer badges look alike, but for the wording across the top of the badge. The desk officer's supervisor called Respondent's beeper, and Respondent returned the call. In a hostile and profane manner he told Respondent to return to the station and fill out appropriate paperwork. Respondent told him he would not come back to the station and hung up on him. The supervisor again beeped Respondent, and Respondent again called him back. The supervisor threatened to call Respondent's precinct and report him to internal affairs, and Respondent advised him that Respondent was not a police officer but was a correctional officer. The supervisor then contacted correctional internal affairs and reported Respondent for impersonating a police officer. The police attempted to find out the juvenile's name and address, but he only gave them false information. They finally fingerprinted him and discovered that his fingerprints were on file and that there were several outstanding warrants/pick-up orders against him. Instead of taking him home, they transported him to juvenile hall. Respondent did not identify himself as a police officer to anyone that night. Respondent did not restrain the juvenile or imprison him against his will. The juvenile went with Respondent both to the security guard booth and to the police precinct without protestation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, 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 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Braverman, Esquire 2650 West State Road 84 Suite 101A Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Findings Of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 2-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 10 and 11. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certification as a corrections officer be revoked, but that the revocation be suspended and respondent placed on probation for a-period of two years at which time if there is no further evidence of misconduct by the Respondent, the revocation be remitted and the probation terminated. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 22nd day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esq. 233 W. College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a), 11B-27.0011(4)(c), and 11B-20.0012(1)(f), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Odom was a correctional officer working as a sergeant at Century Correctional Institution (Century) in Century, Florida. Jarl Johnson (Johnson) is a correctional officer who was employed at Century while Odom was employed there. Johnson went to the dormitory where Odom was stationed to check equipment. He advised Odom that he would do the head count of the inmates, but Odom indicated that he would do the head count instead of Johnson. Odom took two inmates, who were in the officers' station, with him to do the head count, and the inmates carried flashlights with them while doing the head count. Inmates are prohibited from doing head counts and carrying flashlights. Vera Elliot (Elliot) is a correctional officer, who is employed at Century. On February 14, 2003, she was working a double shift. One of her shifts that day was the same shift on which Odom was working. Elliot observed Odom and two inmates do a head count of the inmates. The two inmates came into the officers' station, while Odom was present. At that time, no inmates were allowed in the officers' station. On that same evening, Elliot saw Odom give a white box containing food to the two inmates. Correctional officers are not allowed to give food to inmates. Gregory Gilliard (Gilliard) is a correctional officer, who was employed at Century while Odom was employed at Century. Gilliard observed an inmate and Odom in the laundry room directly behind the officers' station. The inmate was polishing Odom's shoes. Gilliard also observed another inmate in the officers' station. The doors to the laundry room were open, making the dormitory accessible, which is a breach of security. On May 8, 2003, Jeffrey R. Brooker (Brooker), a correctional investigator for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Corrections, interviewed Odom concerning complaints against staff at Century. While under oath, Odom told Brooker that he never allowed inmates to carry flashlights, never gave food to inmates, never allowed inmates in the officers' station, and never allowed an inmate to polish his shoes. These sworn statements were false. Based on the statements given by Odom to Brooker, it is found that Odom knew that his statements were not true. The Commission alleged in the Administrative Complaint that Odom used excessive or unnecessary force on an inmate. The only evidence presented concerning these allegations was hearsay. Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: "Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions." Therefore, no finding is made that excessive or unnecessary force was used by Odom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Richard L. Odom violated Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 29th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this administrative complaint, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Putnam Correctional Institution (Putnam). He was certified August 14, 1987 by certificate #14-87-502-13. He is 26 years old. In September 1987, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Special Agent Jimmie Collins was tipped off by Michael Adkins, an inmate at Putnam, that a correctional officer was interested in selling one or two kilograms of cocaine. Collins approached Adkins' wife, Phyllis, who agreed to assist Collins in a criminal investigation. At Collins' instructions, Phyllis Adkins set up a meeting with Respondent, telling him she was a mediator or broker for a cocaine buyer named "Joe." Mrs. Adkins wore an electronic transmitter to a meeting with Respondent on September 2, 1987 and her conversation was monitored and taped by Agent Collins. At the September 2, 1987 meeting, which took place in the open at a restaurant parking lot, Respondent and Mrs. Adkins discussed in the most general terms an exchange of "coke" for money. "Samples" were discussed. No one made any commitment to anyone with regard to samples or a sale. The Respondent's behavior was described by both participants as "freaked" or frightened. Later, Mrs. Adkins set up another "meet" with Respondent for September 23, 1987 under similar conditions. At that time, she had with her another FDLE agent, Joe Nickmier, who posed as the imaginary narcotics dealer named "Joe." Respondent brought with him another person, Chris Sanford. Agent Collins was surprised that Respondent brought someone with him because such an exposure of a proposed drug deal to several persons was contrary to his experience with the secretive, suspicious, and paranoid behavior of "real dopers." As a result, Agent Collins felt that Respondent was involved in something he did not know about. Collins was further surprised when the masquerading "Joe" concurred with Respondent's ordering Chris Sanford to stand back away from their conversation, since Sanford's involvement had the potential of raising the circumstances to a standard sufficient for FDLE to make a charge against both Respondent and Sanford for "conspiracy" in use, trafficking, or selling of a controlled substance. During the conversation involving Respondent, Phyllis Adkins, and "Joe," on September 23, 1987, which conversation was also monitored and taped by Agent Collins, there is a suggestion that Respondent would exchange 17-18 or 22 ounces of some kind of drug for money, but the language employed by all concerned is vague and unconnected. Respondent avoided any commitment to the others, including giving them his phone number. At the conclusion of this meeting, Agent Collins had formed the opinion that Respondent did not fit the category of "a real doper" but was just an individual out to make some money. Collins felt that he had a reasonable expectation that the Respondent would sell cocaine if he could get it but that Respondent could not get cocaine from the Putnam County Sheriff's Office or the Daytona Police Department. It is not clear where Agent Collins got the idea that Respondent had offered to obtain any controlled substance from the respective evidence rooms. This concept was not volunteered or admitted by Respondent in either of the taped meetings with Phyllis Adkins and/or "Joe." Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" suggested to Respondent several times on September 23, 1987 that Respondent's contact must be in law enforcement in Daytona, but no "evidence room" was ever mentioned. It may be that Agent Collins relied on out-of-court (hearsay) information from Michael or Phyllis Adkins, but his reliance on such hearsay statements, in the absence of some direct supporting evidence, does not support a finding that Respondent ever made an offer to get contraband drugs from any sealed evidence room. In a subsequent March 1988 interview, Respondent admitted to prison inspectors and to Agent Collins that he had, indeed, made both parking lot contacts with Phyllis Adkins and that he knew he was operating outside the scope of his employment duties as a correctional officer when he did so, but that he was just conducting his own investigation into drug dealing to "set up" inmate Michael Adkins for FDLE. Respondent's stated purposes were to further his career and to impress his father, a Florida highway patrolman. Respondent admitted that he knew the prison investigator at Putnam but that he did not report his activities to the prison investigator. Special Agent Jimmie Collins consulted FDLE legal personnel and determined not to prosecute the Respondent criminally because there was insufficient evidence of either conspiracy or of a substantive statutory violation. Two times in January 1986, far previous to any of the events giving rise to the current charges, Respondent had approached another FDLE Special Agent, Paul Fuentez, giving him the names and addresses of several known drug dealers and requesting the opportunity to go undercover with Fuentez to acquire evidence against them. Fuentez met twice with the Respondent, face to face, and at that time, Respondent admitted to using drugs with such persons. Fuentez instructed Respondent not to "do" drugs with suspects and not to proceed with any independent investigation on his own. Respondent told Fuentez at that time that he had been awake all night. Fuentez felt that Respondent was "hyper," and might still be on drugs, and therefore Fuentez told Respondent that they could not work together as long as Fuentez had the opinion that the Respondent was on drugs. On September 23, 1987, the day of the Respondent's second meeting with Mrs. Adkins and his only meeting with "Joe," Respondent phoned Fuentez twice. The first time, the Respondent said he had been talking to a prisoner named Michael Adkins who was dealing drugs with a Puerto Rican named "Joe." The Respondent specifically asked Agent Fuentez if Adkins had been dealing with "Joe" when Adkins had been arrested for the crime for which Adkins was currently incarcerated. Fuentez' testimony indicated that Respondent was clearly asking about the past status, not the present status, of the people named. At the time of this first call, Fuentez knew about Collins' investigation at Putnam but did not know Respondent had been specifically targeted. Fuentez formed the opinion that Respondent was trying to find out about FDLE investigations. He told Respondent he did not have time to look up information about the people Respondent had named and ended the phone call. Later the same day, Respondent called back to Fuentez and told him to forget the whole thing. Since the "meet" of September 23 occurred after dark and Respondent's phone calls to Fuentez seem to have occurred during business hours, the undersigned infers that both Respondent's phone calls to Fuentez preceded his "meet" with Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" on September 23, 1987. Respondent also had a conversation with Robin Edwards, a local police officer. Respondent related to him that he had been approached by a Putnam inmate, Michael Adkins, to buy or sell drugs. Mr. Edwards advised Respondent to talk to his trooper father or his superiors. At formal hearing, Edwards could not date this conversation closer than that it could have been in September 1987, but even so, it appears not to be an afterthought devised by Respondent only due to the March 1988 confrontation of Respondent by investigators. Lenard Ball is a Correctional Officer Inspector II. Upon his testimony, it is accepted that a standard of correctional officer behavior prohibits them from operating outside a correctional institution. Unless they are acting as prisoner escorts, correctional officers' authority ends at the boundary of their respective institutions. Upon Officer Ball's testimony, it is also accepted that each correctional institution may institute a policy permitting criminal investigations within that institution to be pursued by only one correctional officer, and that at Putnam, all officers are required to report all such conversations as Respondent was having with Michael Adkins to one of two superiors. In Ball's opinion, Respondent's actions were clearly prohibited by anti-fraternization rules and by rules prohibiting Respondent from placing himself and others in danger. Respondent was never an institutional investigator. In fact, he had only been certified as a correctional officer for approximately one month when the material events occurred. At formal hearing, Respondent testified credibly that the entire episode was only intended by him to achieve more in his position, that he had no connection with anyone in the local police department or the sheriff's office who could give him access to drugs, and that he had no other access to those evidence rooms. Respondent had consistently denied any mention of evidence rooms since the March 1988 investigation. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent had ever had any access to any controlled substances through any evidence rooms or otherwise. (See Finding of Fact 5) Further, Respondent represented that his phone conversations with Agent Fuentez scared him, that he only attended the September 23, 1987 meeting with Phyllis Adkins and "Joe" because he had been threatened by Michael Adkins with being turned in to FDLE, and that he took Chris Sanford, a Fire Department employee, with him to the September 23, 1987 "meet" as a witness for his own protection. Chris Sanford did not testify. Michael Adkins did not testify. There is therefore no further support or dispute to Respondent's intent or motivation from original sources.
Recommendation 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 finding Respondent guilty of bad moral character as defined in Rule 11B-27.001(4)(c) F.A.C., issuing a reprimand accordingly, and placing his certificate on probationary status for two full years, subject to specific terms and conditions for appropriate education, training and supervision to be imposed by the Commission in its expertise, and providing for revocation of his certificate in the event those conditions are not timely met. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 2nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-2450 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: Except where subordinate or unnecessary, PFOF 1-7, 10- 13, 16, 19-21 are accepted. PFOF 8-9 are accepted to the degree described in the RO. The PFOF contain argument and the quotation is only part of several pages and does not accurately reflect the exhibit or record as a whole. PFOF 14-15 and 17 are only part of several pages and do not accurately reflect the exhibit or record as a whole. PFOF 18 is rejected as unproved. Respondent's PFOF: None filed to date. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Smith 2720 Edgemore Palatka, Florida 32077 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffery Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
