The Issue Whether Petitioner's, David A. Reed, application for a real estate sales associate license should be granted so that he may sit for the salesperson's examination.
Findings Of Fact FREC is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2009).1 Petitioner applied for a real estate sales associate license. FREC stated several factual grounds for the proposed denial of Petitioner's application in the Notice of Intent to Deny. In 1994, Petitioner was arrested and plead guilty to three counts of lewd and lascivious assault on children in the Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida. Adjudication was withheld, and Petitioner was placed on supervised probation for ten years and ordered to enroll, and successfully complete, the sex offender treatment program. From 1992 to 1994, Petitioner committed repeated lewd and lascivious assaults upon his daughter and two nieces. His daughter and one niece were between ages six and eight during this time, and his other niece was between the ages of ten and 12. Petitioner successfully completed the sex offender program and was released from the program in 1999 and supervised probation was terminated early that same year. Thereafter, Petitioner was required, under Florida law, to register as a sex offender and report his whereabouts to law enforcement. Upon his release from treatment, Petitioner was informed that he could schedule a counseling session with his therapist or participate in a group therapy session. Petitioner has indicated that this is unnecessary, and he has not sought assistance in this area. Petitioner has not been arrested or charged with any other disqualifying offense since 1994. Petitioner has started, and still maintains, a successful lawn maintenance business. Petitioner is now working, part-time, for his sister, Valarie Tillman, a real estate broker/owner, in her real estate office in Ft. Myers. She sent a letter of recommendation and testified in his behalf and has offered him a position as a sales associate, should his license be approved. Petitioner also offered four other notarized letters of recommendation. However, they cannot be considered as persuasive in these Findings of Fact because they are hearsay, and the authors are not subject to cross-examination under oath. Petitioner did not present any disinterested witnesses (or other evidence) who could favorably describe Petitioner's dealings in business matters or transactions. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show that he was honest, truthful, trustworthy, had good moral character, or had a good reputation in the community for fair dealing. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show that he was competent and qualified to make real estate transactions and conduct negotiations with safety to investors "and to those with whom the applicant may undertake a relationship of trust and confidence." Petitioner presented insufficient evidence of rehabilitation from his criminal past. Petitioner plead guilty to three felony counts of lewd and lascivious assault on children. These egregious acts, coupled with a lack of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, convinces the undersigned to conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied his burden of showing that he is qualified for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The central issue in these cases is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida. Respondent, Beltran Pages, M.D., was, at all times material hereto, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0036079. Respondent is a board certified psychiatrist who has practiced in the Palm Beach County area since July, 1981. Respondent left private practice in September, 1985, and is currently employed at the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center, an HRS facility for the criminally insane. During the period February, 1982 through September, 1982, Respondent treated Lynn Harrington (now Lynn DeGrado) at his Boca Raton office which was located in the Weir Plaza Building. This office space was shared with a Dr. Cohn. The Boca Raton office consisted of a waiting area, a hallway with bathroom, and two physician offices. The walls in this facility were not sound proof and noises could be heard, if not distinguished, between the rooms. Mrs. Harrington had a regular Tuesday appointment at 10:00 a.m. During these weekly visits Mrs. Harrington discussed her marital difficulties with Respondent. One of the problems was an affair Mrs. Harrington was having which she did not want to abandon. Mrs. Harrington did not find her husband sexually attractive and, while she hoped the sessions with Respondent would enable her to rehabilitate her marriage, the Harringtons eventually divorced. During the latter months of the marriage, Pat Harrington became aware of his wife's infidelity. Mr. Harrington felt that Respondent had misrepresented progress being made to save the Harrington marriage. Mr. Harrington amended his petition for dissolution of marriage to claim Mrs. Harrington was an unfit mother. In a sworn statement taken October 27, 1982, Mrs. Harrington claimed she and Respondent had had sexual relations during the course of her treatment. This sworn statement was given in connection with a settlement of the dissolution issues. The statement was not to be used in court since the parties had resolved all their differences regarding the children. Later, Mr. Harrington sued Respondent in a civil suit for damages in connection with the claimed sexual conduct. This suit was later dismissed by the court. During the course of treatment with Mrs. Harrington, Respondent had many frank, open conversations of a sexual nature with her. These conversations included discussions of Mrs. Harrington's affair and her fantasies. During this time the Respondent did not engage in sexual intercourse with Lynn Harrington. Mrs. Harrington's testimony that she and Respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse was not credible. Mrs. Harrington was unable to describe with any detail any incident or time during which such conduct occurred. During the period June, 1983 through November, 1984, Respondent treated Lorry Thomas at his Delray Beach office on Linton Boulevard. The walls in Respondent's Delray Beach office were sound proof. Lorry Thomas came to Respondent with a history of depression. In addition to prescribing medications for her, Respondent saw Mrs. Thomas on a weekly basis. During these sessions Respondent and Mrs. Thomas engaged in frank, open discussions of a sexual nature. These discussions led to further activities which ultimately resulted in Respondent and Mrs. Thomas engaging in sexual intercourse. The Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with Lorry Thomas during the time she was being treated as his patient. Following the sessions with Respondent, Lorry Thomas would often emerge to the outer office in a rumpled, upset condition. This condition was observed by Respondent's receptionist/secretary, Jolene Stratton. When Mrs. Thomas determined she could not continue as both a patient and a lover, she elected to cancel appointments in an effort to continue seeing Respondent. During the course of her treatment with Respondent, Mrs. Thomas was married and living with her husband, Mike. When Mike was transferred to California, Mrs. Thomas moved there also but continued written or telephone communications with Respondent. In December, 1984, Lorry Thomas went to see a clinical psychologist in Santa Clara, California, named Jean Bayard. Mrs. Thomas complained of a despair in her life and an uneasy feeling regarding her marriage. During the course of her discussions with Dr. Bayard, Mrs. Thomas disclosed her past sexual relationship with Respondent. On one occasion Respondent "made a pass" at and kissed Ms. Stratton. This incident occurred when they were viewing pictures in a magazine featuring nude females. Respondent's denial of the sexual relationship with Lorry Thomas was not credible. It is improper for a physician to engage in sexual intercourse with a patient during that patient's treatment. Such conduct is contrary to acceptable standards for psychiatrists.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulations, Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing Administrative Complaint (#30291), Case No. 87-4157. It is further recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (#70999) , Case No. 87-1882, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5000, suspending Respondent's license for six months, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years with appropriate supervision and restriction, and requiring such continuing education programs as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-1182, 87-4157 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4(a) is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 4(b) is rejected as argumentative. To the extent paragraph 5 finds Respondent and Lorry Thomas engaged In sexual Intercourse during the time she was in treatment such paragraph is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the record ("wide variety of sexual activity") or argumentative. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 8, only to the extent that Respondent and Lorry Thomas engaged in sexual intercourse during the time she underwent treatment is the paragraph accepted. As a matter of law, there would be a presumption she was not consenting. Otherwise, paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William O'Neil, Esquire Jon King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry D. Dennis, Jr., Esquire 1401 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's correction officer's license is subject to disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Mark T. Lewis, the Respondent, was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 31, 1990. He was issued Correctional Certificate Number 79926. At the time and to the present, Respondent lived with his long-time girlfriend, Melanie Young. On April 23, 1992, the Respondent threw a party, at a friend's house for Ms. Young. The friend's house was located at 220 North Caroline Street. Ms. Young became very inebriated at the party. At some point, she was so drunk she had fallen and bloodied her nose and face. During the night, a physical and verbal altercation occurred between the Respondent and Gerold Scurry. Also, at some point during the party, Respondent had stepped on a piece of glass which was lodged in his foot. Because of the altercation, Respondent left the party on foot but eventually obtained a ride from a friend. He left his car, a black Camero, at the party's location. Ms. Young did not want Respondent to leave. In her foggy, drunken state, she was upset that Respondent had left. After Respondent left the party, the party broke up with everyone leaving the apartment where the party had been held. Ms. Young and Mr. Scurry's sister left the party's location and went to her friend's relatives' home. The relatives and her friend, perhaps mistakenly believing Respondent had caused Ms. Young's bloody nose, agitated Ms. Young into calling the police. At approximately 5:00 a.m. on April 24, 1992, Melanie Young, still quite inebriated and not thinking clearly and still upset with Respondent, called the Daytona Beach Police Department. Ms. Young was so intoxicated she does not clearly remember what she told the police 911 operator when she called. She admits that she could have said anything to the operator in her condition. Officer Anthony Annatone received a dispatch to respond to 220 North Caroline Street in reference to a subject driving a black Camero who was possibly armed and enroute to that location in order to harm another. Ms. Young in her drunken state forgot Mr. Scurry was no longer at the party's location. In fact, no one was at the party's location. As Officer Annatone arrived he observed the apartment door standing open and a black Camero leaving the apartment's parking lot. Respondent had decided to retrieve his car from the parking lot. He was driving to the emergency room at the local hospital to have his foot taken care of. Officer Annatone, followed the Camero and called for back up. When the backup arrived, Officer Annatone activated his lights and pulled the Camero over. Respondent got out of the Camero and walked to the back of the car towards the police car. Officer Annatone asked Respondent if he was armed with a firearm or weapon. Respondent replied no but that the officer could check the car. Respondent was completely cooperative and polite towards the police officers. Daytona Beach Police Department Officer Steve Larson searched the Camero. He recovered from underneath the driver's seat a Titan II [sic] .380 caliber semi-automatic firearm, with a fully loaded magazine of 6 bullets. The gun was encased in a holster without a strap. Officer Annatone was not able to see a weapon from his vantage point outside and in back of the Camero. Respondent recognized the weapon as one purchased by Ms. Young. The gun was to be a surprise birthday present to Respondent. The present was chosen by Ms. Young because Respondent had recently obtained his correctional officer's license, was working at one of the local prisons and was authorized to carry a weapon while working. Unknown to Respondent, Ms. Young had hidden the weapon in the car. The car was used by both Respondent and Ms. Young. On or about September 21, 1992, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to carrying a concealed weapon. He was advised by his attorney that the plea would not have an impact on his correctional license. Adjudication was withheld. Respondent received the minimum fine and a short probation, which was completed successfully. Respondent is of good character and has never been in trouble either before or since this incident. Respondent was well thought of by the Daytona Beach Police and enrolled in and completed that Department's program to obtain a law enforcement officer's license even though he was on probation for this incident. Since Respondent did not know the gun was in the car and did not have any control or authority over the gun, he clearly did not knowingly or intentionally possess a concealed weapon. He therefore did not fail to maintain his good moral character. More importantly, however, even assuming he was aware of the gun being hidden in the car, it would be impossible for Respondent, who was and still is of good character, to lose that character upon the occurrence of the 1992 incident or plea. The facts simply do not support a finding that Respondent is of bad moral character or somehow failed to maintain his good character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Mark T. Lewis 1281 Brockett Road, Apartment 39F Clarkston, Georgia A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training 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 32302-1489
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Ivan Carrandi (Carrandi), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 17, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Carrandi. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Carrandi had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Carrandi and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Carrandi filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Carrandi denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Carrandi on January 1, 1985, at which time he freely admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1980 and 1981, while a student at Miami Dade Community College, Carrandi used marijuana approximately two or three times and cocaine approximately two or three times. He has not, however, otherwise used controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Carrandi's background, that Carrandi possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana and cocaine approximately 8 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Carrandi, born November 12, 1960, used marijuana two or three times and cocaine two or three times about 8 years ago when he was 20-21 years of age and a student at Miami Dade Community College. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Carrandi has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Carrandi has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Ivan Carrandi, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas F. Gorman, Jr., was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-33145 on March 22, 1983. When the events herein occurred, Gorman was employed as a police officer for the City of Vero Beach. On an undisclosed date in 1985, but prior to May 28, 1985, the husband of Kristie Coleman made a complaint with the Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) that his eighteen year old wife had been sexually harassed by a black police officer. After being told the City had no black police officers, the husband then apparently identified respondent, who is white, as being the culprit. An investigation of the husband's complaint was conducted by the VBPD, but it was unable to "verify" the charges. The VBPD then decided to initiate a separate investigation of respondent. To do so, it solicited the aid and assistance of Kristie Coleman, who, at the insistence of the chief of police, agreed to wear a concealed microphone on her person. The purpose of the microphone was allegedly to investigate and intercept evidence of a criminal act on the part of Gorman. Kristie was instructed to stand outside her apartment whenever she saw respondent drive by in his police car so as to make herself visible to respondent. The police chief was explicit in his instructions that their encounter take place while Gorman was on duty. At the same time, two surveillance teams were placed on or near Kristie's premises, one in her bedroom and the other outside her apartment, and they activated recording equipment designed to monitor and record conversations between the two. She was also instructed to tell Gorman that she had to use the bathroom if he entered her apartment and placed a hand on her leg. This was a predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room and make their presence known to Gorman. There was no court order approving the use of the concealed microphone. At approximately 6:38 p.m. on May 28, 1985, respondent drove by Kristie's apartment. It is stipulated that respondent was in uniform and on duty at that time. Upon seeing Kristie emerge from her apartment, Gorman stopped and the two began a conversation. During the course of the evening Gorman left the premises and returned six separate times after the first visit at 6:38 p.m. These return visits occurred at 7:08 p.m., 7:34 p.m., 8:22 p.m., 8:59 p.m., 9:04 p.m. and 9:20 p.m. However, it was not until the seventh visit that Gorman actually entered Kristie's apartment. On each visit, their conversations were recorded by the hidden microphone worn by Kristie. The transcript of the conversation was not transcribed by the parties, and portion of the recorded conversation are inaudible due to external noises such as traffic and the engine noise of respondent's vehicle. As a result of the VBPD surveillance activities, respondent was offered a choice of being terminated from the police force or voluntarily resigning. Gorman chose the latter. The administrative complaint herein was then filed by petitioner thereby prompting the formal hearing in this matter. It charges that Gorman "did agree with Kristina Coleman to engage in sexual intercourse with her in Kristina's apartment while the Respondent was on duty as a Vero Beach police officer." The tape reveals that Gorman and Coleman had known each other, at least by sight, prior to May 28, 1985. The two had also recently met when Gorman, while on duty, stopped Coleman one evening for a suspected moving violation. However, she was not ticketed by Gorman, and at that time Coleman told Gorman she wanted to see him again. Throughout the tape recorded meetings on May 28, Coleman repeatedly attempted to get Gorman to acknowledge that he had not given her a ticket in return for sexual favors. Gorman denied this was true each time the subject was raised, and there is no evidence to indicate that was the case. As noted earlier, the tape recording is not of the highest quality, and several parts of the conversation are either inaudible or partially obscured by other noises. Nonetheless, the following relevant facts are found from the more than one hour of recorded conversations, most of which were nothing more than casual conversation between the two. After several return visits to her apartment that evening, Gorman made several Flattering comments to Kristie, such as how "beautiful" she was, that she had a nice personality, and how Gorman was attracted to her. Gorman asked if he could see her after he was off-duty, but Kristie declined. As the evening went on, Kristie told Gorman that her sister would arrive at her apartment at 11:00 p.m. to spend the night, and that the few hours before 11.00 p.m. would be the "only time" she had to meet with him. Although Gorman was reluctant to go to her apartment while on duty, Kristie told him that once she got "started," she wanted Gorman to finish the job. She also asked him if he was "too chicken-shit to come into (her) house." On his last visit to her apartment that evening, Gorman accepted her offer to come into the apartment. After taking off his gun and holster at Kristie's request, and declining an offer of a beer from Kristie, Gorman then said what appears to the undersigned to be "Let's do it." Kristie then gave the predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room. No sexual intercourse occurred and there is no evidence that respondent was charged with a violating any state or municipal law by the foregoing conduct. There was no specific reference to sexual intercourse in the conversations, although it can be reasonably inferred that Kristie was suggesting this to Gorman, and that he intended to accept her offer. There was no evidence that Gorman's conduct constituted what the agency perceived to be a lack of good moral character within the meaning of its rules or governing statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against Thomas F. Gorman, Jr. be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wayne R. McDonough, Esquire P. O. Box 1690 Fort Pierce, Florida 32960 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case No.: 85-3590 CJSTC Case No.: L-33145 THOMAS F. GORMAN, JR., Certificate Number: 02-33145 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lamary had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Lamary and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. HEARING OFFICER Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 12, 2000, and filed March 11, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, St. Amand was a certified law enforcement officer employed as a detective by the North Miami Beach Police Department. St. Amand occupied a position of the highest trust as a member of the detective bureau. He abused that trust by engaging in repeated acts of lewd behavior in the workplace. The nature and quantity of the behavior was sufficient to provoke complaints to the Dade County State Attorney's Office which resulted in an investigation concerning sexual harassment and indecent exposure. In the course of that investigation, St. Amand compounded his offenses by lying consistently and repeatedly to investigators. Five witnesses, all of whom were entirely credible, testified in detail regarding incidents they had witnessed in which St.Amand masturbated, or simulated masturbation, at work. One such incident took place in the community patrol office. St. Amand's semen was collected from the carpet in that office. One of his former partners in the family violence unit said it was "second nature" to St. Amand to grope himself, simulate masturbation, and make vulgar comments. He did so in front of male as well as female colleagues. St. Amand falsely denied under oath that any of the incidents his colleagues testified to ever happened. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that law enforcement officers who lack good moral character, or who make false statements under oath, may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. The public has every right to expect that those who serve and protect will do exactly that--not harass and embarrass colleagues and citizens who are conducting business in tax- supported buildings. St. Amand's conduct did substantial damage to his colleagues' morale, and to his department's reputation for professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Amand's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 16th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred St. Amand, Jr. 2429 Northwest 184 Terrace Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029 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 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983, Walter Taylor (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 66856. On December 23, 19851, Respondent was certified by Petitioner, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 66855. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Riviera Beach Police Department (Riviera Beach PD) as a law enforcement officer. In April 1994, Respondent and his wife were divorced. They had been married 14 years and had minor children. Prior to the divorce, Respondent had several confrontations with his wife regarding her relationship with another man, a Mr. Chilton, whom she had met in or around 1988. During one confrontation in April 1993, Respondent slapped his then wife. At times, Mr. Chilton was present when the confrontations took place. At no time prior to the divorce did Respondent harm or threaten to harm Mr. Chilton. Subsequent to the divorce, Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton continued their relationship. In August 1994, Respondent wanted to attend his family’s reunion in New York but had insufficient funds to take his children with him. Respondent’s ex-wife agreed to attend the reunion with them. With her financial support, everyone could attend the reunion. Respondent and his ex-wife agreed to a pre- arranged time for them to meet on August 11, 1994, and drive to the reunion together. On August 11, 1994, prior to the pre-arranged time, Respondent and his children were packed and ready to leave. Respondent attempted to contact his ex-wife, so they could depart early. He called several places but to no avail. Having failed to locate his ex-wife, Respondent concluded that she was at Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent called Mr. Chilton’s apartment several times only to get an answering machine. He drove to Mr. Chilton’s apartment. By this time, it was approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Chilton’s apartment complex, he observed both Mr. Chilton’s and his ex-wife’s vehicles in the parking area. Respondent knocked on Mr. Chilton’s apartment door but received no response. Having knocked from two to five minutes, Respondent left but stopped nearby at a telephone. He repeatedly called Mr. Chilton’s apartment and again the answering machine answered. Respondent was convinced that his ex-wife was in Mr. Chilton’s apartment and that they were refusing to answer the telephone or the door. Respondent was upset and frustrated. Respondent returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment and began knocking again. The more he knocked, the more frustrated he became. His knocks became harder and louder until he was pounding the door. No one answered the door. Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton were afraid to open the door. At all times, Mr. Chilton and the Respondent’s ex-wife were inside the apartment. The door was locked and the deadbolt was engaged. Becoming more and more frustrated, Respondent hit the apartment door two or three times with both hands, arms raised, palms forward and with the weight of his body behind him. The force applied by Respondent knocked down the door. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment beyond the door frame. He told his ex-wife to come outside with him and talk. She immediately complied. While exiting Mr. Chilton’s apartment, Respondent informed Mr. Chilton to bill him for the door. The door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment was damaged beyond repair and the area surrounding the door was severely damaged. The dead bolt area on the door was bulged. The area on the door jam in which the dead bolt slid had popped and come loose and was indented. The door handle was very loose. The trim on the doorway was split. On many occasions Respondent has been involved in law enforcement raids in which he, personally, has had to break down doors with his body. The method used by Respondent to break down the doors during the raids was not the same method used by him on August 11, 1994. Even though Respondent’s action forced open the door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment, he reacted out of frustration, not with the intent to force the door open. However, Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. He should not have returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment but waited for his ex-wife until the prearranged time. Respondent’s actions could have escalated the situation into a more serious incident. He exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others. The incident was reported to the Martin County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies on the scene took pictures and completed a report. Mr. Chilton did not want to file criminal charges against Respondent but only wanted his door repaired. The Deputies assisted Mr. Chilton in somewhat securing the door, so that it would at least close. Approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 12, 1994, Respondent telephoned Mr. Chilton. Respondent apologized for the damage to the door and agreed to pay for the damage. Subsequently, Respondent telephoned the apartment complex’s manager and agreed to pay for the damage to the door. The cost of the door was $352.99. A payment plan was arranged in which Respondent would pay for the damage in installments. Due to financial constraints, Respondent was unable to comply with the payment plan as agreed upon. The final payment was made on or about February 2, 1995. Respondent had no reason associated with his law enforcement duties to enter Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent was off-duty and out-of uniform. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment without permission or invitation. Respondent is responsible for the damage to the door of Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Prior to the incident on August 11, 1994, in or around June 1994, Respondent received training in Anger Management. On August 3, 1994, Respondent was promoted to Sergeant, on a probationary status, by the Riviera Beach PD. As a result of the incident on August 11, 1994, the Riviera Beach PD conducted a personnel investigation. On January 24, 1995, it issued a notice of intent to take disciplinary action against Respondent -– a demotion from a Sergeant to a Patrol Officer, which included a five percent cut in salary. The disciplinary action was taken by the Riviera Beach PD. On November 2, 1994, Petitioner’s Probable Cause Panel issued Respondent a Letter of Guidance for the act of committing battery (slapping) upon his then wife in April 1993. At the time of the issuance of the Letter of Guidance, Respondent had successfully completed the Probable Cause Intervention Program. The Probable Cause Panel was not aware of the pending disciplinary action against Respondent by the Riviera Beach PD involving the incident of August 11, 1994. Neither Respondent nor the Riviera Beach PD notified the Probable Cause Panel of the pending disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Suspending Respondent’s certification for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of March, 1997.
