The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
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, Jorge Cobas (Cobas), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since April 6, 1987, 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 Cobas. 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 Cobas 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 Cobas 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, Cobas filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Cobas 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 Cobas on May 1, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana "one time years ago." Other than this isolated occasion, there is no proof that Cobas otherwise used any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Cobas' background, that Cobas possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Cobas, born December 29, 1956, admitted to having used marijuana one time, years ago. Such isolated 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, Cobas has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two 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, Cobas 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, Jorge Cobas, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th 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 20th day of June, 1989.
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, Leon Lewis (Lewis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since September 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 Lewis. 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 Lewis 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 7, 1988, the Commission notified Lewis and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You actually and intentionally struck Edward Thornton against the will of the said Edward Thornton. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Lewis 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 an assessment of Lewis' moral character, the proof demonstrates that the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Lewis on April 20, 1984, at which time he admitted to having "tried marijuana one time, four years ago." At the time of use, Lewis was 17 years of age and a high school student; he has not otherwise experimented with controlled substances. The proof also demonstrates that in October 1982, Lewis struck one Edward Thornton on the head with an umbrella. The circumstances surrounding such blow being struck demonstrate that, following a high school football game, Thornton was harassing Lewis' girlfriend when she, crying, sought Lewis out. At that time, Thornton and a number of his friends confronted Lewis and his girlfriend. Reasonably fearing an attack, Lewis grabbed an umbrella and exclaimed "Before you hit me, I'm going to have to get one of you," and struck Thornton on the head. Other than a cut to the head, there is no proof that Thornton suffered any significant injury. While Lewis was arrested as a consequence of the incident, the matter was subsequently dismissed and the record expunged. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lewis' background, that Lewis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the two isolated incidents, heretofore discussed, in Lewis' life. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Lewis, born February 25, 1963, used marijuana one time, nine years ago, when he 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. Likewise, the isolated incident of striking Thornton over the head with an umbrella when Lewis was 19 years of age was hardly proximate to his employment, or this consideration of his application for certification, and does not, under the circumstances presented, evidence bad moral character. 4/ To date, Lewis has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three and one-half years. There is no suggestion that he has committed any act or offense that would reflect adversely on his moral character during the term of such employment. Overall, Lewis 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, Leon Lewis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's corrections officer license is subject to suspension, revocation or other discipline.
Findings Of Fact On August 29, 1996, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent's corrections officer license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to maintain good moral character by testing positive for a controlled substance, marijuana, which was indicative of the illegal ingestion of a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On September 5, 1996, Respondent filed an Election of Rights in which he disputed the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and requested an administrative hearing. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 23, 1999. The Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Volusia Correctional Institution (VCI) in early 1991. A corrections officer is a special risk employee in a safety sensitive position. At the time of licensure Respondent passed his drug screen. In 1996, the month of February had 29 days. In February 1996, Warden Bruce Scherer received allegations of possible drug abuse by Respondent from Connie Beach, Respondent's (then) wife. Respondent's wife was also a corrections officer. Ms. Beach had been in the Warden's office asking for a day off to retrieve her belongings from the marital home due to personal problems with Respondent. Upon inquiry of the Warden, the Warden learned that Ms. Beach's brother Carroll Bradshaw had smoked marijuana with Respondent. The Warden called the brother by telephone. The brother confirmed he had smoked marijuana with Respondent several occasions. In response, the Warden asked Respondent to submit to a drug test. Respondent was cooperative and agreed to submit to the drug test. Volusia Correctional Institution does not conduct random drug testing. At no time did Respondent question why he was being asked to submit to a drug test. Bolton accompanied Respondent to the Halifax Hospital facility to submit a urine specimen for drug testing. In testing specimens for marijuana, two tests are conducted; the first of these is an immunoassay screen, and the second is a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) test. The GCMS test is the more definitive test which specifically identifies THC, the major metabolite of marijuana. THC is also the part of marijuana which gives it its psycho-active properties. Cut-off levels are used in the testing process in order to exclude positive test results for persons who may have had accidental (or second-hand) exposure to marijuana. Respondent submitted his first urine sample for drug testing on February 28, 1996. On March 4, 1996, the results on the immunoassay screen came back positive for cannabinoid (marijuana). The sample first tested positive. It then tested about 300 nanograms of THC in the GCMS test. On March 19, 1996, a second test was conducted on Respondent's original urine sample. On March 20, 1996, the results of that test were received and reviewed by Dr. Hung Doan. The GCMS test showed 259 nanograms of THC. The result was confirmatory of the first as positive for marijuana. Dr. Hung Doan is a certified Medical Review Officer (MRO). He is certified as to his knowledge of drugs, their medical usage and ingestion. Dr. Doan is an expert in the field. Dr. Doan was the MRO who reviewed and certified the results of Respondent's two positive drug tests in 1996. The high levels of marijuana detected in the two positive tests of Respondent's urine sample conclusively establish that the results could not have been caused by accidental or passive inhalation of marijuana. The results did not rule out ingestion of marijuana since the evidence showed that about two cigarette sized amounts of marijuana would produce results similar to those found on Respondent's tests. However, the evidence did not show that Respondent had eaten any marijuana. Only multiple "accidental" exposures to, in conjunction with "accidental" ingestion of marijuana could possibly have resulted in the nanogram levels detected in Respondent's urine without his knowledge. Respondent did not produce any evidence beyond speculation to suggest that this might have occurred in his case. Mr. Beach was notified of the first positive test on March 4, 1996, by Mary Yochum, Dr. Doan's assistant. Respondent's response to being told that he tested positive for marijuana was "okay." He was concerned with the result but could not go into detail over the phone because other officers were present. On March 6, 1996, Respondent submitted a separate urine sample for the purposes of having an independent drug test. The results of that test were negative for marijuana. However, this second test occurred seven days after the first urine sample was given. The test only shows Respondent's level of cannabinoid on the latter date had decreased or diluted sufficiently to fall below the cut-off point for such tests. Marijuana can clear the human body's system within days. However, a chronic user of marijuana may take up to 75 days before the drug clears the persons system. It depends on the persons individual metabolism. Carroll Bradshaw is the ex-brother-in-law of Respondent. Mr. Bradshaw is a known drug user and convicted felon. He was last released from incarceration in 1998 after serving time for a cocaine charge. He continues to use drugs to date. Mr. Bradshaw regularly socialized, and smoked marijuana with Respondent. However, he had not smoked marijuana for quite a while before receiving the telephone call from the Warden. Respondent admittedly was familiar with the smell and appearance of marijuana. Respondent would typically supply and prepare the marijuana which he and his brother-in-law smoked while socializing. Respondent kept his stash of marijuana on a "paraphernalia" tray underneath his couch in his home. Respondent's former mother-in-law, who was also familiar with the look and smell of marijuana because of her son's problems, witnessed Respondent smoking marijuana with her son and others. She confirmed the testimony of her son and her daughter as to Respondent's use of marijuana. Given these facts Petitioner has shown clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Chapter 943, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2001, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 John Stanton, Esquire 121 1/2 North Woodland Boulevard Suite 3 Deland, Florida 32720 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 31 years old. He has lived in Florida for the past 11 years. Petitioner works at a rehabilitation center that provides services to individuals with substance abuse problems. He has worked in that job for about a year. As a client advocate, he works with children 16 years of age and older. For ten years Petitioner has served as a volunteer basketball coach in the Flagler County Police Athletic League (PAL). He currently coaches the high-school-aged girls' travel team. Over the years he has coached boys and girls in the fourth grade through the twelfth grade. For three or four years Petitioner has been a volunteer in a church-based youth ministry program. He supervises, mentors, and provides encouragement to the children in the program. Petitioner applied for an educator’s certificate so that he can coach basketball at the high school level. He does not need the certificate to continue coaching in the PAL, but he needs the certificate to work or even volunteer as a high school coach. Petitioner was employed as a certified correctional officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI) for about four years, until September 23, 2007. TCI is a state prison in Volusia County, Florida, operated by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). As Petitioner was driving to work at TCI on September 23, 2007, he saw a team of DOC investigators conducting a drug interdiction at the facility. He pulled his car over to the side of the facility’s entrance road and threw a small package out of the car window before proceeding to the parking lot. TCI staff saw Petitioner throw the package from his car and informed the DOC investigators. The DOC investigators went to the area and recovered the package. The package contained marijuana. It was in a plastic baggie and had been tightly wrapped in paper towels and then covered with medical tape. The manner in which the marijuana was wrapped is consistent with the most common way that drugs are packaged when they are smuggled into a prison. The package was small enough and flat enough to be hidden in a man's boot or around his crotch area and not be detected during a cursory pat-down search. After Petitioner was told by DOC investigators that a drug-sniffing dog alerted to his car, he voluntarily spoke to the investigators and admitted that the package found next to the entrance road was thrown there by him, that he knew it contained marijuana, and that he threw it out of his car when he saw the drug interdiction team at the facility. However, Petitioner denied that he planned to sell or give the marijuana to an inmate or anyone else “inside the walls” of the facility. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he received the marijuana the day before the incident while he was at a fundraising car wash for his PAL basketball team. The children on the basketball team were at the car wash when the marijuana was delivered, as were Petitioner’s children. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that his sister-in-law called him before the car wash and asked him to help her by allowing a friend to bring marijuana for her to Petitioner at the car wash. She said she would later pick it up from Petitioner. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he did not give much thought to her request because she was a family member and one should always help out family members. When the marijuana was delivered, Petitioner was at his car which was a distance away from where the cars were being washed. He wrapped the marijuana in paper towels and medical tape, which he had in his car from a prior injury, so that his children, who were helping wash the cars, would not see it when he drove them home in his car. His sister-in-law did not come to pick up the marijuana after the car wash. He forgot that the marijuana was in his car until he was close to work the next day. When he saw the interdiction team at TCI, he stopped and threw the marijuana out of the car. He then drove into the parking lot, parked his car, and went in to work. Petitioner was immediately arrested after his confession to the DOC investigators. He was charged with possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana and introduction of contraband into a state prison. Both of those charges are felonies, but for reasons not explained in the record, the State Attorney elected not to prosecute either of the charges. Petitioner was immediately fired from TCI after his arrest, and he subsequently lost his certification as a correctional officer. Petitioner testified that he understands that what he did was wrong, that he is sorry for what he did, and that he will never do it again. This testimony appeared to be sincere. The character witnesses who testified on Petitioner’s behalf at the final hearing all testified that Petitioner is a good person and a good role model for the children that he coaches and mentors; that this incident was out of character for Petitioner; and that they have no concerns about Petitioner working with children. This testimony was sincere and clearly heartfelt. Although the DOC investigators weighed the marijuana while it was still wrapped and determined that it weighed 37.8 grams, they did not weigh the marijuana itself after removing it from its packaging. There is no competent evidence in this record as to the weight of the marijuana. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the amount of marijuana Petitioner threw from his car would have constituted a felony or a misdemeanor. Similarly, there is no competent evidence in this record as to whether Petitioner was on the grounds of a state prison when he threw the marijuana from his car. There are no security fences, no checkpoints, and no security towers before one reaches the signage for the correctional facility and its attendant structures. Petitioner believed that he would have been on prison property if he had passed by the signage for the facility and had crossed the road surrounding the perimeter of the prison. One of the DOC investigators testified that the property boundary was several hundred yards before the entrance sign. The photographs admitted in evidence visually suggest that the correctional facility's property commences beyond the sign and beyond the location where Petitioner threw out the marijuana. There is no competent evidence as to whether Petitioner was on state property with the marijuana in his possession. Petitioner denies that he intended to introduce contraband into the correctional facility. Rather, his actions in throwing the marijuana out of his car at a location he believed to be outside of the facility's property suggest he did not intend to bring the contraband onto the grounds of the facility. Petitioner has met the qualifications for obtaining an educator's certificate to enable him to coach basketball on the high-school level.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sidney M. Nowell, Esquire Justin T. Peterson, Esquire Nowell & Associates, P.A. 1100 East Moody Boulevard Post Office Box 819 Bunnell, Florida 32110-0819 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mariam Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against the criminal law, from vagrancy on December 31, 1958, to gambling on May 3, 1976. He has been convicted in the courts of three states on various charges, including assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, carrying a concealed weapon, destroying city property, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, non-support, possession of dangerous drugs and possession of marijuana. In addition, he was arrested for and charged with assignation and vagrancy; and posted bonds which were forfeited. According to a personal questionnaire petitioner filled out on March 16, 1978, petitioner is single; he has been employed at the same place since 1976; and he has lived at the same address since 1974.
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, Humberto Jimenez (Jimenez), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two and one-half years, 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 Jimenez. 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 Jimenez 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 Jimenez 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, Jimenez filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Jimenez denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.OO11 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 Jimenez on July 24, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana in the past. His use of cocaine occurred in 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and consisted of using the drug twice on the same day. His use of marijuana occurred in 1981 or 1982, while he was a high school student, and occurred on no more than four occasions. But for these isolated occasions, Jimenez has not used cocaine or marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Jimenez's background, that Jimenez possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of cocaine and marijuana. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Jimenez, born January 1, 1964, used marijuana infrequently, the last time being about 7 years ago when he was 17 years of age and a high school student. His use of cocaine occurred on but one day in his life, and at the time he was 19 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/ Currently, Jimenez is married and the father of a fourteen-month-old daughter. He has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations demonstrated that his performance has been above satisfactory to outstanding, 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, Jimenez 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, Humberto Jimenez, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 13, 1987, and was issued certificate number 19-86-502- 05. Respondent is employed as a correctional officer by Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and has been so employed since June, 1986. Respondent's current assignment is at the Metro-Dade County Women's Detention Center, Miami, Florida, where she works in different correctional capacities. Respondent was born on March 18, 1956, and attended junior and senior high school in Miami, Florida. She then attended Miami-Dade Junior College on a two-year scholarship, earning an A.A. degree in criminology. She then attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, earning a Bachelor's degree in criminology. During high school Respondent lost the tips of three fingers on her right hand, as a result of an accident in the factory where she worked. Respondent worked for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, from 1979-1986. At first, she worked in the Clerk's Office itself. She was subsequently assigned to work as a courtroom clerk in the misdemeanor division, and later moved up to working as a courtroom clerk in the felony division. Hector A. Rocafort, a polygraph examiner with the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, administered a polygraph pre- test to Respondent on November 5, 1985. The pre-test involves a discussion/interview between Rocafort and the person being examined prior to the time that the polygraph examination itself is administered. Rocafort made notes of his interpretation of the discussion between Respondent and him. Those notes were never shown to Respondent. Respondent was never advised that any statements made by her to Rocafort could or would be used against her in an administrative forum. The statements subsequently attributed to Respondent, as reported by Rocafort, are not verbatim statements; rather, Rocafort paraphrased statements made by Respondent to him. The statements allegedly made by Respondent were not sworn to by Respondent, and the written interpretation subsequently made a part of her personnel file by Rocafort were not sworn to by him. During the pre-test, Respondent was encouraged to disclose any conduct that was even questionable in her mind, and Rocafort explained legal ramifications to her. For example, he explained that taking items home from work, shoplifting, and petit theft were all the same thing. When a specific dimension of the pre-test format called for time periods or the number of times that conduct was engaged in, Respondent was asked to indicate a time frame or number with which she would feel comfortable. Rocafort explained that the methodology used is to have the examinee make pre-test disclosures in their worst light so that when the actual polygraph examination is administered, he can ask the question "Other than what we have already discussed, have you ever . . . ." That way, the examinee does not have to worry about exact numbers or dates or questionable incidents during the examination and can comfortably answer the polygraph examination questions so as to produce accurate readings. Accordingly, the number of occasions indicated or the time periods indicated during the pre-test need not be accurate. According to Rocafort, Respondent did very well on the actual polygraph examination. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to being arrested and charged with petit theft in 1977. In 1977 Respondent, while attending Florida State University, was in a Woolco Department Store in Tallahassee with another lady she knew. Respondent's companion took off the pair of old "thongs" which she was wearing and put on a new pair of "thongs" which the store had for sale. The "thongs" had a retail value of $1.99. She left the store without paying for them. A Woolco security guard called Respondent and her companion back to the store. Respondent returned to the store, but her companion did not, having gone elsewhere in the mall. Since Respondent had been with the person who committed the theft, the security guard called the police, and Respondent was charged with petit theft. She was taken to jail and brought before a judge the next morning. When she appeared in court, she had no attorney, was scared, and was alone. The judge explained to her that if she pled guilty, she would be required to serve 24 hours of community service. Since she was afraid of what else could happen to her if she did not plead guilty, she entered a plea of guilty and was required to perform 24 hours of community service. She performed her community service at the Salvation Army's nursery and worked there for more than the 24 hours required, working there during the evenings when she had spare time. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to purchasing stolen goods on four occasions, the last time being 1980 when she allegedly purchased a pair of sneakers for $5.00. Respondent purchased items from street vendors several times throughout her life, a common occurrence or "way of life" in her neighborhood. In approximately 1980, while Respondent was working in a restaurant with her mother a man came into the restaurant selling canvas sneakers. Respondent's sister wanted to purchase a pair, so Respondent gave her the $5.00 she needed to buy a pair of sneakers from the vendor. Currently, similar sneakers can be purchased retail for $5.99. Similarly, Respondent purchased undershirts for her baby son when Respondent was 15 years of age. Respondent never considered the fact that the sneakers or the undershirts might have been stolen until Rocafort suggested to her during the pre-test on November 5, 1985, that items bought from street vendors could be stolen property. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to shoplifting ten times, the last time being five years earlier. Respondent has never shoplifted. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to using marijuana approximately five times, the last time being two years earlier. Respondent took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette at a party while she was in the 9th or 10th grade, at the age of 15 or 16. Respondent involuntarily took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette, at the insistence of a man she was dating in 1982 or 1983. Respondent has no recollection of puffing a marijuana cigarette other than on those two occasions. Respondent took a pre-employment physical examination on April 10, 1986, at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis in which Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Respondent took an annual employment physical on March 14, 1990, at Mount Sinai Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis. Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation considers, in determining whether an applicant's prior use of controlled substances should be a bar to employment, the severity and frequency of the usage and the lapse of time between the usage and the applicant's employment. If the usage is not severe or frequent and one year has passed between the last usage and the employment application date, then the usage is not considered proximate in time and prior use will not be a bar to employment but will simply be considered along with all of the other factors considered as a result of the background investigation of an applicant. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test Respondent allegedly admitted to taking minor office supplies totalling approximately $10.00. Respondent, while working as a courtroom clerk for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, was issued pens, pencils, "Wite out", and manila folders to use at her job. When Respondent "used up" the supplies issued to her or if someone took them off her desk in the courtroom, she would have to submit a written request for a replacement. Accordingly, Respondent often took these supplies home to safeguard them and generally brought them back to the job the next day, but may have forgotten on occassion. The polygraph examination, the pre-test, the physical examination, and a background investigation are required to be conducted by the employing agency prior to certification of a correctional officer by Petitioner. By virtue of the fact that Respondent was certified by Petitioner on February 13, 1987, she was determined at that time by Petitioner to be of good moral character up to that date. All allegations of misconduct made by Petitioner in this cause involve dates prior to the date that Petitioner concluded that Respondent had good moral character. Respondent is considered, by reputation, to be honest beyond reproach, to possess integrity, and to be of good moral character. She is an outstanding employee, and has the respect of her supervisors. As one supervisor testified, "She can work with me any time." Respondent possesses, and has maintained, good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon 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 filed against her and dismissing the Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11- 15 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, tested positive for marijuana metabolites, indicating the unlawful use of a controlled substance, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether and what discipline should be imposed against Respondent’s certificate?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued certificate number 240412 on May 17, 2004. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Town of Palm Beach Police Department (the Town). On June 24, 2012, at approximately 1:20 a.m., Respondent responded to an alarm call. As he was leaving the scene, Respondent, who was driving a city police vehicle, pulled into a private driveway and failed to see a low hanging metal chain hanging across the driveway attached to two concrete pillars. The chain struck the front end of the vehicle, and, as Respondent continued forward, the chain rode up the front hood and struck the windshield. As a result, the vehicle sustained multiple scratches across the hood, a cracked windshield, a broken side view mirror, and a cracked front lens plate. Watch commander, Captain Curtis Krauel (Krauel), was on the scene at the time the accident occurred. Krauel estimated the damage to the vehicle to be approximately $500.00. However, it was very dark and this was a rough estimate only. In relevant part, the Town’s comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse policy, procedure number 1-06-5(d), provides that the Town may require an employee to submit to tests for the presence of alcohol or illegal drugs: Whenever an employee is involved in an accident while operating a town vehicle or while working for the town, which results in one or more of the following: A citation issued to the employee; Total property damage in excess of $1,000; Filing of a notice of injury under Workers Compensation. Because Krauel was not certain of the amount of damage to the vehicle, he instructed Respondent to report back to the station for drug and alcohol testing. Krauel had no concerns prior to the accident regarding any illicit drug use by Respondent. However, he knew that this accident would require a property damage report and that the Town’s policies mandate testing. This was Respondent’s first accident in seven years, and he was upset. Krauel told Respondent he believed the damage was minor. Respondent disputed that an alcohol or drug test was necessary. Respondent had been studying for the sergeant’s exam and was aware that the policy had a minimum $1,000.00 damage threshold. Krauel contacted his sergeant and both believed the threshold necessary for testing was $500.00 worth of damage. However, as Krauel explained at the final hearing, he is not a property appraiser, and he needed to make a ballpark estimate in the dark. Krauel knew that he could not really tell the damage until the morning; therefore, the most prudent option was for him to send Respondent for drug and alcohol testing. Property Damage Appraisers Fort Pierce examined the vehicle and provided a repair estimate of $1,844.24. Respondent, in compliance with the order issued by his supervisor, reported back to the station on June 24, 2012, at approximately 2:11 a.m., and gave a specimen of his urine, by urinating in a sterile, previously unused specimen cup provided to him by Nancy O’Dette (O’Dette)(formally Nancy Richards) of NMS Management.1/ After Respondent urinated into the specimen cup provided to him, he handed it to O’Dette who put Respondent’s specimen into a tube, immediately sealed the tube, had Respondent initial and date the seal, and then completed the chain of custody form. O’Dette labeled Respondent’s specimen with his Social Security number and also assigned it a unique specimen number, 9263743, making it uniquely identifiable as Respondent’s June 24, 2012, urine sample. The vial containing Respondent’s urine specimen was sealed with a label that would not allow the vial to be opened again without breaking the seal created by the label. O’Dette packaged the vial containing Respondent’s urine specimen in a bag which she also sealed and labeled as Respondent’s June 24, 2012, urine sample. She then placed the bag in a pickup box at NMS Management to await pickup by a courier for delivery to laboratories of Quest Diagnostics (Quest). Specimen number 9263743 was received at the laboratories of Quest in Tucker, Georgia, on June 26, 2012, where it was assigned the unique laboratory accession number 328410K for purposes of drug testing analysis by Quest. Quest maintained chain of custody procedures in handling Respondent’s specimen until it was unsealed by qualified laboratory personnel at the Quest laboratory and subjected to screening and confirmatory analysis for evidence of the presence of controlled substances in the urine. Quest conducts initial testing of urine samples by immunoassay, and confirmation testing by "GC-MS" or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. It is the regular practice of Quest to make reports of the results of its testing. A marijuana metabolite is produced by the body of a person who consumes marijuana either by ingestion or by smoking it. The marijuana is absorbed into the body and is broken down by the liver, producing the marijuana metabolite, which is excreted through the kidneys. Quest conducted immunoassay and confirmation testing on specimen number 9263743. Quest’s confirmatory laboratory analysis of Respondent’s urine specimen was found by qualified Quest personnel to be positive for the marijuana metabolite in a concentration of over 1500 ng/mL. Any quantitative level of the marijuana metabolite detected above 15 ng/mL using the "GC-MS" methodology is considered a positive test result. Dr. Benjamin Droblas, a medical doctor and the medical review officer for Healthcare Center of Miami, reviewed the report from Quest reflecting the results of the analysis of Respondent’s urine specimen. On June 29, 2012, Dr. Droblas discussed the test result by telephone with Respondent. Dr. Droblas’ purpose for contacting Respondent was to ascertain if he could provide any legitimate explanation for the positive test result. Respondent did not provide Dr. Droblas with any explanation for the positive test result and denied using marijuana. The test results from the analysis of Respondent’s urine specimen are consistent with Respondent’s illicit cannabis use prior to providing his urine specimen. Respondent did not request additional confirmatory testing on a split sample from Quest.2/ No evidence was introduced regarding any prior discipline against 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 a final order finding Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent’s certification as a corrections officer be suspended for a period of six months, followed by probation for a period of two years. As condition of probation, it is recommended that the Commission require random drug testing and substance abuse counseling, as contemplated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.005(7)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 20th day of June, 2014.
