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, 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 Jack Jordan is an applicant for licensure as a Detection of Deception Examiner. Jordan is over 18 years of age, has an excellent reputation for honesty, truthfulness, integrity, moral fitness, fair dealing, and professionalism in his work. Jordan has never been arrested or convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony. Jordan served honorably in the armed forces of the United States. Jordan has approximately one semester left to complete his four year degree, a law enforcement related subject. Jordan has 38 months' experience as an investigator or detective with the Flagstaff, Arizona, Police Department and Casselberry, Florida, Police Department. Jordan operated a detective agency, licensed by the State of Florida in the Orlando-Casselberry area. Jordan and his agency provided security at high school athletic events from 1972 through 1974. Jordan also provided security for eight (8) large rock concerts held in the Orlando area. In both capacities, Jordan was authorized to wear a weapon, supported local police agencies, and was authorized to and did make arrests. Because of their fine reputation, Jordan's agency was recommended by local police agencies. Jordan was required by his duties in providing security and crowd control at the events mentioned above to plan and execute security provisions at these functions. His work in this regard went beyond merely providing manpower at these events. His preparations often began three to four weeks before a major event, such as a rock concert.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency grant Jack Jordan a license as a Deception Detective Examiner in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Vossler, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack Jordan 2428 Locke Avenue Orlando, Florida 32808 Marvin Sirotowitz Bureau Chief of Records Examination Secretary of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 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, Arvis Bethel (Bethel), 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 Bethel.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 Bethel 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 Bethel 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. You have unlawfully committed an assault and battery on Louie F. Clayton. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Bethel filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Bethel 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 Bethel on October 7, 1985, at which time he divulged that he had purchased stolen property a few times, so long ago as to not exactly remember when; had used marijuana, although he could not recall the number of times, 12- 13 years before the interview; and had tried cocaine twice, 3-4 years before the interview. Also conceded by Bethel was his conviction in 1965 of assault and battery. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Bethel's background, that Bethel possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, the proof demonstrates that at some time prior to 1966, the exact date not being known due to the passage of time, Bethel did receive a few auto parts which, although he did not know at the time he received them, were apparently stolen property. At the time, Bethel and his friends raced cars and in the process of maintaining their cars traded parts. Such was the circumstance under which Bethel, who was then not more that 20 years of age, having been born October 1, 1944, received parts which later proved to have been stolen. On June 2, 1965, Bethel, then 20 years of age, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, and served four months in the Dade County Jail. That conviction, which occurred almost 25 years ago, arose as a consequence of a fight Bethel had with one Louie F. Clayton. On September 26, 1986, Bethel entered the United States Army where he served honorably for over six years. By the time he was discharged on February 9, 1973, he had been promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, had served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and had been awarded, among other indicia of distinguished service, the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and Good Conduct Medal. Admittedly, while in Vietnam, Bethel used marijuana, however, since that time, a period of over 16 years, he has not used it. Following his discharge from the service in 1973, Bethel was employed by Florida Portland Cement Company, and was continuously employed by such company, except for the period of July 1976 through January 1977, until it went out of business in 1984. During the period of July 1976 through January 1977, Bethel, along with other employees of Portland Cement, suffered a brief layoff. During that period, Bethel was employed as a corrections officer by the Department of Corrections in Florida City, albeit without certification. The only recent blemish on Bethel's record is his use of cocaine on two occasions in 1981 or 1982, during the course of his divorce. Such conduct is atypical of Bethel's character, and his remorse for having used such substance is credited. In light of the circumstances, such usage is not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Bethel has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three and one- half years. His annual evaluations have ranged from 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. Bethel is now, and has been for some time, a respected member of the community. He is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Masons. He has attended Miami Dade Community College where he has amassed 78 semester credits. During the last semester he attended, the winter term which ended March 1, 1986, Bethel carried 18 semester hours of class work, and received a 3.33 grade average out of a possible 4.0. Overall, Bethel 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, Arvis Bethel, 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, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th 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 case is whether Petitioner lacks good moral character in violation of Section 539.001(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and her husband own and operate Seminole Antiques and Pawn ("Seminole Antiques") at 6115 Seminole Boulevard in Seminole, Florida. The business of Seminole Antiques includes pawnbroking. Petitioner first engaged in the business of pawnbroking in 1990. On November 28, 1995, officers from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff's Office") arrested Petitioner on charges of dealing in stolen property and failing to maintain adequate records. On March 4, 1995, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. The court accepted Petitioner's plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, assessed costs of $144, and placed Petitioner on probation for two years. On March 14, 1997, the court entered an order terminating Petitioner's probation. Registration And License Prior to October 1, 1996, pawnbrokers had been required by former Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes (1995). 2/ to register with the Department of Revenue ("DOR") as secondhand dealers. From 1990 through 1996, Petitioner was continuously registered with DOR as a secondhand dealer. In relevant part, former Section 538.09(4) provided: . . . registration may be denied . . . or any registration granted may be revoked, restricted, or suspended . . . if the applicant or registrant: (f) Has, within the preceding 5-year period, been convicted of, or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, a crime . . . which relates to registration as a secondhand dealer or which involves . . . dealing in stolen property. . . . The registration provisions in former Section 538.09 did not include a requirement that a pawnbroker be of good moral character. Effective October 1, 1996, Section 539.001 transferred responsibility for licensing and regulating pawnbrokers from DOR to Respondent and prescribed license eligibility requirements. 3/ The license eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 include a requirement that an applicant be of good moral character. On October 1, 1996, the eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 did not prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge of dealing in stolen property within a five year period. However, Sections 539.001(4)(a)3. and 4. did prohibit a conviction in the last 10 years of any felony or any other crime that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker ( a "related crime"). In 1997, the legislature amended Sections 539.001(4)(a) and 4. to prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or related crime. The amendments took effect on June 3, 1997, approximately 36 days after the hearing in this case. As amended, Section 539.001 provides inter alia: (4) ELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE-- (a) To be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must: 1. Be of good moral character; Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of . . . nolo contendere to, or had an adjudication withheld for a felony within the last 10 years . . . . Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of nolo contendere to, or had adjudication withheld for a crime that involves dealing in stolen property . . . within the last 10 years. * * * (6) SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND SURRENDER OF LICENSE . . . (a) The agency may, after notice and a hearing, suspend or revoke any license upon a finding that: The licensee . . . has violated this section . . . . A condition exists that, had it existed when the original license was issued, would have justified the agency's refusal to issue a license. . . . (emphasis supplied) The underlined provisions became effective June 3, 1997. Pawnbrokers already in business had six months from the date Section 539.001 became effective to comply with the "registration . . . provisions" of Section 539.001. 4/ Section 539.001(21) provides, in relevant part: (21) TRANSITION PERIOD FOR LICENSING--Each pawnbroker operating a pawnshop in business of the effective date of this section shall have 6 months from the effective date of this section to comply with the registration . . . provisions before the agency may initiate any administrative . . . action. (emphasis supplied) Section 539.001 became effective on October 1, 1996. Petitioner, had until April 1, 1997, to comply with the registration provisions in Section 539.001. Prior to April 1, 1997, Respondent was statutorily prohibited from initiating any administrative action against Petitioner. On October 8, 1996, Petitioner applied for a pawnbroker license. On December 4, 1996, Respondent initiated administrative action by denying the application. Notice In the letter of denial dated December 4, 1996, Respondent stated several grounds for denying Petitioner's application. In relevant part, the letter stated: Section 539.001(4) . . . provides that to be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must be of good moral character and must not have been convicted of a felony within the last 10 years . . . that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker. Our background investigation has revealed that you were found guilty of or pleaded nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records, case number CRC9519648CFANOB in 1996 (sic). Based upon these findings, your application for a pawnbroker license is hereby denied for failure to meet the eligibility requirements of s. 539.001(4) . . . . (emphasis supplied) Consistent with Section 539.001(4), Respondent's letter of denial listed as separate and distinct requirements the requirement for good moral character and the requirement of no felony conviction within the last 10 years. However, Respondent's letter of denial deviated from the statute that was in effect at the time, by expanding the definition of a conviction to include a plea of nolo contendere. Petitioner timely requested an informal hearing with Respondent. Respondent conducted the informal hearing by telephone conference. During the telephone conference, Petitioner testified that she was not guilty of dealing in stolen property. She testified that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get her husband to purchase a watch. The transaction was not completed, and Petitioner was not present at the time. Nevertheless, Petitioner was charged with dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Petitioner further testified that she chose to enter a plea of nolo contendere in order to quickly resolve the issue. Respondent disregarded Petitioner's testimony. On January 13, 1997, Respondent issued a letter overruling Petitioner's objections and denying Petitioner's application. Respondent based its administrative action on the ground that Petitioner was not of good moral character. Respondent did not make an independent determination that Petitioner was guilty of dealing in stolen property. Respondent determined that Petitioner lacked good moral character solely on the basis of the criminal charge and plea of nolo contendere. In relevant part, Respondent's letter of January 13, 1997, stated: The facts set forth in the . . . denial letter dated December 4, 1996, are undisputed. As part of the . . . review of your application, a criminal background check . . . by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement . . . revealed that you pled nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Adjudication was withheld. During the proceeding, you stated that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get your husband to purchase a watch. Although according to your testimony the transaction was not completed and your were not present at the time, you were charged. Subsequently, you chose to enter a plea in order to quickly resolve the issue. . . . Pursuant to Section 539.001(4) to be eligible for a pawnbroker license the applicant must be of good moral character. Based upon your criminal arrest and plea discussed herein, you fail to meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the Florida Pawnbroking Act. Therefore, your objections to the denial of your application for a license are hereby overruled. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner retained counsel. On February 5, 1997, Petitioner's counsel sent a letter to Respondent requesting a formal hearing. In relevant part, the letter stated: . . . my client . . . received a letter indicating that she had been turned down for her license because of a criminal matter where she had been charged with dealing in stolen property and received a withhold of adjudication and probation. It is my understanding that her probation is now complete. . . . Mrs. Garafolo received a letter from Geoffrey G. Luckemann informing her that she was not eligible for a pawn broker's license because she was not of good moral character. . . . I . . . believe that the ends of justice would be honestly met by allowing . . . a Formal Hearing. . . . (emphasis supplied) On February 24, 1997, Respondent referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the administrative hearing. From February 24 through April 28, 1997, Petitioner's counsel did not file a request for discovery. On April 11, 1997, Respondent voluntarily served Petitioner's counsel with a copy of its administrative file. The administrative file contained numerous exhibits, including the exhibits Respondent submitted for admission in evidence at the administrative hearing. On April 15, 1997, the parties entered into a Prehearing Stipulation that included a list of Respondent's witnesses. The only witnesses listed by Respondent were the two undercover investigators Respondent called at the hearing. The Prehearing Stipulation stated that the issue for determination at the administrative hearing was whether Petitioner lacked good moral character. The parties did not stipulate that Respondent was limited to evidence of Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". In relevant part, the Prehearing Stipulation stated: . . . the application for a pawnbroker license was denied by respondent on the basis petitioner did not have good moral character. * * * The issue of fact to be determined is the good moral character or lack thereof by Nella Garafolo. At the administrative hearing, Respondent stated, for the first time, that it intended to prove Petitioner's lack of good moral character by evidence other than evidence of her ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". Respondent sought to prove that Petitioner actually dealt in stolen property and failed to keep adequate records. Petitioner's counsel objected to the admissibility of any evidence other than the ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . ." and moved to suppress any other evidence. Petitioner's counsel stated numerous grounds for the objection and motion, including due process requirements for adequate notice. The objections by Petitioner's counsel were overruled, and the motion was denied. Petitioner's counsel had adequate notice of the nature and scope of evidence Respondent intended to present at the administrative hearing. Even if Respondent had been required to file an administrative complaint in this case, due process would not require the complaint to satisfy the technical niceties of a legal pleading. 5/ Due process requires a specific accusation in the charging document or a procedure for disclosure, but not both. 6/ Respondent's letters of denial specifically charged that Petitioner lacked good moral character. Petitioner's counsel had adequate time from January 13, 1997, through April 28, 1997, to seek disclosure of the nature and scope of the evidence Respondent intended to adduce at the hearing. Petitioner's counsel declined to avail himself of the benefit of any procedure for disclosure. Petitioner's counsel had notice that Respondent intended to call the undercover investigating officers as witnesses in the administrative hearing. Neither Petitioner's arrest nor her plea were disputed issues of fact. The testimony of the undercover investigators was unnecessary to prove the criminal arrest and plea. It was reasonable to conclude that the undercover investigators were going to testify to facts other than Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". The notice to Petitioner's counsel was timely. On April 11, 1997, Respondent served Petitioner's counsel with a Notice of Filing Discovery. The notice listed the two undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. On April 15, 1997, Petitioner's counsel signed the Prehearing Stipulation with a list of Respondent's witnesses attached as Exhibit 1. The Prehearing Stipulation identified the undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. Petitioner's counsel had approximately 17 days from April 11, 1997, until the hearing on April 28, 1997, to inquire into the scope of the witnesses' testimony and to either prepare his case accordingly or to request a continuance to allow him time to do so. Petitioner's counsel chose not to avail himself of that opportunity prior to the hearing. There was no material error in procedure that impaired the correctness of Respondent's action. Respondent followed prescribed procedure. 7/ Good Moral Character In support of the allegation that Petitioner lacked good moral character, Respondent submitted evidence of an investigation and arrest that took place in November, 1995. On November 7, 1995, two undercover investigators for the Sheriff's Office began an investigation of Seminole Antiques. They were supported by four more officers at remote locations who monitored the conversations of the two undercover investigators. One or both of the undercover investigators visited Seminole Antiques on November 7, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 28. The investigation concluded on November 28, 1995, when Sheriff's deputies arrested Petitioner and her husband. The evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of the testimony of two undercover investigators, their arrest reports, tapes of visits they made to Seminole Antiques on November 14 and 17, 1995, transcripts of those two tapes, and transcripts of the tapes of the other visits. The evidence also included other miscellaneous documents. The tapes and transcripts purport to evidence conversations between the investigators, Petitioner's husband, and Petitioner. The two tapes submitted by Respondent are copies of the original tapes made by Sheriff's office personnel who monitored the conversations of the undercover investigators from outside Seminole Antiques. The original tapes were destroyed by the Sheriff's Office in accordance with department policy for cases in which a nolo contendere plea is entered. One of the undercover investigators made copies of the original tapes for November 14 and 17, 1997. Both copies are in evidence in this proceeding, without objection. Transcripts exist for the original tapes for each of the six visits that the undercover investigators made to Seminole Antiques. None of the transcripts are verbatim transcriptions. Each transcript is a summary prepared by one or the other of the two undercover investigators. Each summary contains only that portion of the recorded conversations which, in the opinion of the author of the transcript, are inculpatory. 8/ Respondent did not provide Petitioner with the notice of intent to use summaries that is required in Section 90.956. Similarly, Respondent did not make available to Petitioner the data from which the summaries were prepared because the data had been destroyed by the Sheriff's Office. The undercover investigators did not conduct business transactions every time they visited Seminole Antiques. On each occasion that the undercover investigators did conduct business, they used stolen property that the Sheriff's Office had recovered, inventoried in its log books, and stored. For the initial transaction conducted on November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators used two rings. One ring was a 14 karat gold ring with an onyx stone. The investigators placed a wholesale value of approximately $30 on the ring. The other ring was a gold ring with four diamond chips. The investigators placed a wholesale value of $35 on the second ring. On November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators pawned the two rings to Petitioner for $30. 9/ Petitioner completed the required paperwork evidencing the transaction. One of the undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques on November 14, 1995. He carried a bag containing two gold rings, two gold bracelets, and a gold necklace. One ring was a 10 karat gold ring with one sapphire stone flanked by two small diamond chips. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $40. The other ring was a 14 karat gold ring. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $39. One bracelet was a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $27. The other bracelet was also a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The investigator estimated its retail value at $54. The necklace was an 18 inch, 14 karat, necklace. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $108. When the undercover investigator presented the bag of items to Petitioner, she and her husband were standing behind the counter at Seminole Antiques. Petitioner opened the bag and appraised the items inside while the undercover investigator conducted simultaneous conversations with Petitioner and her husband. Petitioner did not agree with the value placed on the goods by the undercover investigator. Petitioner gave the undercover investigator $30 for all of the items. She completed the required forms. The investigator terminated the transaction and returned to the Sheriff's Office. The same undercover investigator returned to Seminole Antiques on November 17, 1995. He did not conduct a transaction. He described to Petitioner and her husband a fictitious transaction on the previous day in which the investigator said he sold a gold Rolex watch to a competing pawn shop for $600. Petitioner was upset and told the investigator she would have given him more money. The investigator stated that Seminole Antiques was closed and that he needed the money. On November 20, 1995, both investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with unopened video cassettes. The investigators placed an aggregate value on the cassettes of $340. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to take $60 for the cassettes. Petitioner paid the investigators $60 and completed the required forms. The investigators returned to the Sheriff's Office. On November 22, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with a video cassette recorder and remote control. They valued the two items at $149. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to $55 for both items. Petitioner paid the investigators $55 and added the VCR to the pawn ticket for the previous transaction. On November 28, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with two Rolex watches. One watch was a stainless and gold watch. The other was an 18 karat gold watch with a 14 karat gold band. The undercover investigators valued each watch, respectively, at $2,995 and $6,995. The investigators first offered to sell the watches to Petitioner for $300 each. The investigators conducted the balance of the transaction with Petitioner's husband. The investigators agreed to accept $600 for the watches. Law enforcement officers from the Sheriff's Office arrested Petitioner and her husband. They took Petitioner and her husband to the Sheriff's Office and questioned them. Petitioner stated that she did not know any of the items had been stolen. She said that she was going to do the paper work on the watches and then resell them in the store. Petitioner did not have actual knowledge that the items she purchased were stolen. The investigators never represented to Petitioner that the items were stolen. As one of the investigators explained during his testimony: . . . at some time . . . it has to be represented as stolen. And that's hard to do sometimes because a lot of stores and pawn shops are fully aware of the law, and once you say something is stolen, they'll throw you right on out. * * * I did not say stolen. Transcript ("TR") at 40, 68. Respondent failed to show that Petitioner should have known that the items were stolen. Much of the evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of opinion testimony by the undercover investigators and hearsay statements by Petitioner's husband. The investigators opined that Petitioner paid them amounts far below the fair market value of the property. When asked how he determined the fair market value for each item, one investigator testified: . . . we've been taught by jewelers how to appraise and pawn brokers, and we give, at the Sheriff's Office, an incredibly low retail value. Wholesale and retail very low so that this way there's never no error. TR at 41. The investigators are not qualified experts in appraising property as diverse as jewelry, video equipment, VCRs, and watches. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators were dressed to portray someone who, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was of bad character. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I had a goatee. I would wear a hat that I've got that's a very scrubby hat. I've got several of them that are scrubby. Holes in my pants. . . . I cut my grass. I don't shower. I get real sweaty. You can see the sweat stain on my shirt, and I walk in looking crummy. Pretty crummy. . . [t]o portray someone of bad character. TR at 42. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators conducted themselves in a manner which, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was typical of bad guys. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I pulled the second [ring out of my pocket], which is typical of bad guys because they want to see how much money they can get for an item. TR at 47. The transactions conducted with Petitioner on November 7 and 14, 1997, do not show that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. The investigators did not conduct a transaction on November 17. The transactions of November 20, 22, and 28, 1997, were conducted primarily with Petitioner's husband. Respondent relied on hearsay statements allegedly made by Petitioner's husband in the same room with Petitioner. Those statements are not competent and substantial evidence that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. Petitioner maintained adequate records. The investigator who was at Seminole Antiques on each occasion originally testified that Petitioner did not complete the required records. He later testified that Petitioner completed the required paperwork after every transaction but did not give the investigator a copy of the paperwork.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for a pawnbroker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1997.
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, but not with those of petitioner. 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, Esteban Tabaoado (Tabaoado), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer periodically since September 11, 1984, without benefit of certification. On or about September 9, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Tabaoado. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated September 9, 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 Tabaoado 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 Tabaoado 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. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Tabaoado filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Tabaoado 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. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to his application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether he currently possesses the requisite moral character for employment. 4/ Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Tabaoado on January 31, 1984, at which time he admitted to having used cocaine approximately eight times, the last time being in 1980, and to having used marijuana a few times, the last time being in June of 1983. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, Tabaoado was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and served satisfactorily until 1986. On December 14, 1986, evidence that Tabaoado had a substance abuse problem surfaced. On that date, Tabaoado telephoned his former supervisor, Lieutenant Lois Spears, a confidante, and advised her that he had been using drugs and did not think he could work that night. Lt. Spears advised Tabaoado not to report for work that evening, but to report the next morning to the administrative offices. The following day, Tabaoado met with Lt. Spears and Ervie Wright, the director of the Department's program services, which include employee counseling. At that time, Tabaoado conceded that he had been abusing cocaine, and Mr. Wright recommended that he seek assistance for his problem. On January 5, 1987, the County terminated Tabaoado's employment as a correctional officer for failure to maintain a drug-free life-style. On October 19, 1987, following Tabaoado's attendance at a drug rehabilitation program, the County re-employed him as a correctional officer. To date, Tabaoado has been so employed for approximately one and one-half years without incident, and his performance has been above satisfactory. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Recently, on January 20, 1989, Tabaoado married Olfuine Tabaoado, who has been a correctional officer with the County for almost three years. According to Ms. Tabaoado, she has never known him to use drugs during the one- year period that she has known him, and Tabaoado has proven to be a good father to her son from a previous marriage. While Tabaoado may have abstained from the use of drugs since his re- employment with the County, or even since January of 1987, the proof is not compelling in this regard. Rather, the proof demonstrates that Tabaoado's use of drugs, at least of cocaine, was frequent and protracted. Here, Tabaoado, born September 2, 1960, to the extent that he would admit it, used cocaine 8 times until 1980 and marijuana a "few times" until 1983. Thereafter, following his initial employment by the County as a correctional officer, he used cocaine to such an extent that by December 14, 1986, he was unable to perform his job and was in need of professional help to address his drug abuse. Such frequent and protracted use on his part does not evidence the requisite good moral character necessary for certification as a correctional officer. Here, Tabaoado chose not to testify at hearing, and there is no competent or persuasive proof to demonstrate that he successfully completed the drug rehabilitation program; when, if ever, he ceased using cocaine; whether he now has an appreciation of the impropriety of his conduct; or whether he can reasonably be expected to avoid such conduct in the future. Notably, on October 5, 1987, prior to his re-employment, Tabaoado underwent another pre-employment interview. At that time, Tabaoado told the interviewer, who had also conducted his first interview, that he had not used any drugs since his last interview on January 31, 1984. Such response was patently false, since he had abused cocaine at least as recently as December 1986. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is concluded that Tabaoado has failed to demonstrate that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Esteban Tabaoado, for certification as a correctional officer be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th 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 28th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner on September 21, 1981, and was issued certificate number 02-29370. Respondent made a total of 28 personal telephone calls totalling over $100.00 on her state telephone credit card issued by her employer, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), between January 31, 1985 and May 31, 1985. At the time she made these calls, she knew it was wrong. She falsified telephone credit card bills by signing or initialing the bill and writing case numbers on the bills to conceal the fact that these were personal phone calls. It is FDLE policy that persons making telephone credit card calls must sign or initial the bills to verify that the calls were made on state business. During January, 1985, the FDLE was brought into an interagency investigation of pornography in the Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough and Manatee County area. Respondent was assigned to assist an interagency task force that had been established for this investigation. She was employed as a Special Agent with the FDLE at the time. Respondent developed, and was in control of, a confidential informant during this investigation who was employed at a bookstore which was involved in this investigation. Although she initially denied to other law enforcement officers working the pornography case, and later to the State Attorney's Office, that she had ever received from the confidential informant mail which was delivered to the bookstore, she was, in fact, getting mail from the confidential informant. The informant was, in some instances, opening the mail received at the bookstore and delivering information to the Respondent from such mail. In other instances, the mail was delivered unopened to the Respondent by the confidential informant, and she would steam open the envelope and read the contents. During the course of an investigation into her actions, Respondent made repeated material misstatements to fellow law enforcement officers by leading them to believe that the informant was simply opening the mail and providing her information, when in fact, she actually received mail from the informant on numerous occasions and opened it herself. When her actions were discovered, she attempted to cover up what she had done by having the mail delivered back to the bookstore. From March to July, 1986, Respondent made repeated material misstatements to the State Attorney's Office, her supervisors at FDLE, and an inspector at FDLE, about mail she had received in the pornography investigation. Due to concerns of the State Attorney's Office that evidence obtained in the pornography investigation may have been tainted due to it having been obtained illegally from mail delivered to the bookstore, Respondent's supervisor directed her in April, 1986, to prepare a memorandum explaining all of the mail she had received from the confidential informant. Her memorandum stated that she had only received mail on two occasions in August, 1985. In fact, she had received mail on many more occasions. FDLE procedures require an agent to write a report within five to fifteen days of receiving any evidence, and to tag such evidence and make it a part of such report by reference with an exhibit number. Respondent failed to follow these procedures, resulting in inaccurate and misleading reports to her supervisors and to the State Attorney's Office concerning this matter. The credibility of law enforcement officers is critical to their ability to carry out their responsibilities, and the Respondent's actions in the pornography investigation demonstrate her lack of credibility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking the certification of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 19th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NUMBER 88-4737 Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 6-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11-12. Adotped in Finding of Fact 5. 13-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 24-27. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 32-33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 34. Rejected as unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Not a proposed Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. A1. Not a proposed Finding of Fact. A2-13. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4-7 and otherwise as simply a summary and argument on the evidence and not a proposed Finding of Fact. B1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. C. Not a proposed Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Maria Scruggs-Weston 1825- 45th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33711 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Daryl McLaughlin Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
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.
