The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place set for hearing petitioner failed to appear in person or otherwise, and proved no facts in support of his application.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for license as a real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 12th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Frank J. Norris 1038 Arco Road, #4 Jacksonville, FL 32211
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, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 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 Morales 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 Morales 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 carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales 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 Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales 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, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 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. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three 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. Overall, Morales 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, Alfonso Morales, 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 198, 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, Hattie Moore (Moore), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 18, 1987, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Moore. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 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 Moore 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 Moore 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. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Moore filed a timely request for a formal bearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Moore 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 Moore on October 15,1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, with the last time being in 1977, and that she had been arrested in 1977 for possession of cocaine. Regarding her use of marijuana and cocaine, the proof demonstrates that any such use ceased in 1977, and that, while Moore cannot remember with exactitude the number of times she used either substance, she most probably used such substances no more than 3-5 times each. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that on February 3, 1977, when she was arrested, Moore had in her possession less than one gram of cocaine. The state chose not to file a criminal information, and her arrest record was expunged on February 3, 1986. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Moore's background, that Moore possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her use or possession of marijuana and cocaine over 12 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Moore, born September 3, 1958, used or possessed marijuana and cocaine infrequently, the last time being over 12 years ago when she was 18 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, Moore has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two 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, and of good moral character. Currently, Moore is married and the mother of two children, ages 11 and 9. She is a homeowner, and also attends Miami Dade Community College where she has amassed 73 credit hours to date. Overall, Moore 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, Hattie Moore, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th 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 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, Carlton Guthrie (Guthrie), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 24, 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 Guthrie. 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 Guthrie 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 Guthrie 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 cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Guthrie filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Guthrie 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-2 7.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Guthrie on March 9, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana 10-15 times during the course of his life, with the last time being approximately 2 years prior to the interview. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Guthrie's use of marijuana was sporadic and infrequent, and that it occurred mostly during his college years. Other than marijuana, Guthrie has not used any controlled substance, and has not used marijuana since at least early 1983. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Guthrie's background, that Guthrie possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his occasional use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Guthrie was born in Jamaica on November 16, 1952, and immigrated to the United States in 1970. He attended his last two years of high school in Hollywood, Florida, and then attended Biscayne College from 1972-1974, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in pre law, with minors in English and psychology. During the course of his college career, Guthrie was employed full- time by a local restaurant, and following this graduation he remained in the restaurant's employ until 1982. Following that employment, Guthrie taught part time as a teacher, in addition to other pursuits, until his employment by the County as a correctional officer in 1985. Guthrie is currently divorced and the father of two children, ages 10 and 15. The children reside with Guthrie in a home he has owned since 1978. He is current in all his obligations, and enjoys a good credit reputation in the community. To date, Guthrie has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. While Guthrie did use marijuana during his college years and as recently as 1983, such use was infrequent and, due to the passage of time, not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Overall, Guthrie 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, Carlton Guthrie, 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 Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Miguel A. Torres (Torres), admitted to being sentenced on August 22, 1988, to one-year probation based on his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. In July 1990 Torres pled guilty to battery on a law enforcement officer and disorderly intoxication. He was sentenced to jail for three days and was given three-days credit for time served prior to the imposition of the sentence. On October 3, 1991, Torres was found guilty of escape, resisting an officer without violence to his person, and criminal mischief based on Torres' plea of nolo contendere to those charges. On October 16, 1992, Torres was adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery based on his plea of nolo contendere. He was placed on probation for three years. On October 16, 1992, Torres pled nolo contendere to three counts of unemployment compensation fraud and one count of grand theft. The court adjudicated him guilty of those charges, withheld sentencing, and placed Torres on probation for three years. On February 2, 1994, Torres was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence based on his plea of guilty to that offense. On February 11, 1994, Torres' probation was revoked, and a sentence of three years was imposed for the crimes of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery. The sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences for escape, resisting arrest without violence, criminal mischief, and driving under the influence. Torres was incarcerated in the state prison system from April 5, 1994, through June 30, 1995. In his application to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association of Managers (Department), Torres included letters of appreciation that he received in 1976 relating to his performance in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard; a letter of appreciation received from the Board of Directors of the Sunset Villas Phase III, Assn., Inc, in 1989; a recommendation letter from the General Manager of the Collins Plaza Hotel, dated April 11, 1997; a letter of appreciation from the Chairman of COM'IN dated November 1997, relating to his duties at the Collins Plaza Hotel; and a letter of appreciation from the Department of Veteran Affairs for Torres' assistance as a volunteer at the VA Medical Center during Hurricane Andrew. Torres also furnished to the Department a letter from the Board of Directors of Mar Del Plata Condominium Assn., Inc., stating that Torres had demonstrated his professionalism to their satisfaction and requesting that Torres' date of examination be expedited so that Torres could accept the Board of Directors' offer of employment as manager of the condominium association. Torres did not indicate on his application whether his civil rights had been restored after his felony convictions, and no evidence was presented at the final hearing to show that his civil rights had been restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Miguel A. Torres lacks good moral character and denying his application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Broyles Executive Director SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1998. Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas G. Thomas Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Miguel A. Torres, pro se 2899 Collins Avenue Apartment No. 1420 Miami Beach, Florida 33140
The Issue The issue to be decided here concerns the Petitioner, Barbara A. James' entitlement to be allowed to receive in transfer a Series 2-COP beverage license for a premises known as Ringside Bar in Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1979, the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, applied to the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to receive an alcoholic beverage license. The details of that application may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the personal questionnaire executed in the course of the application process. This application was for the transfer of license 23-777 for a licensed premises known as the Ringside Bar located at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida. The Petitioner is the owner of the Ringside Bar in which she has placed an initial downpayment of $7,500.00 and financed an amount of $18,000.00 with an additional $10,000.00 in improvements having been made to the bar. After reviewing the license application, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the transfer of the license on December 31, 1979. In his statement of denial the Director based his decision on the belief that the applicant, Barbara A. James, was not thought to be of good moral character within the meaning of Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner took issue with that determination by the Director and this led to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing held herein. At present, in addition to being the owner of the Ringside Bar, the Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Container Company of Sebring, Florida, and works in the sales and promotional aspect of that company. The company manufactures egg containers. In total time of employment, the Petitioner has worked for the Florida Container Company for a period of thirteen (13) months. The Petitioner was not actively employed by that company at the time of the request for license transfer. For approximately ten (10) years prior to her employment with this employer, the Petitioner had worked as a cocktail waitress and barmaid in various establishments in Tampa, Florida. In the past the Petitioner has had a number of arrests for various offenses. Around 1965 or 1966 the Petitioner was arrested for prostitution in Indianapolis, Indiana. Petitioner's explanation of this matter offered during the course of the hearing was to the effect that she was living in a rooming house when the police came to that location and arrested everyone there because of the authorities' suspicion that one or two of the girls who were living there were engaging in prostitution. The Petitioner denied engaging in prostitution. The charges were dismissed, according to the Petitioner, and there is no evidence to contradict this statement by the Petitioner. In 1970 Ms. James was arrested for disturbing the peace and this case was dismissed. In 1975 the Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct by the Tampa Police Department and was subsequently fined $25.00. This incident involved a dispute with her roommate, in which James and her roommate had a fight. On April 25, 1978, in Tampa, Florida, the Petitioner was arrested for offering to commit prostitution. The disposition of that case in the courts was that the Petitioner entered a plea of nolle contendere to the offense and was required to pay a fine. There was no adjudication of guilt in that matter. In the course of the hearing sub judice, the Petitioner stated that the reason she entered her nolle contendere plea was for reason that her attorney advised her that it was the easiest and quickest thing to do and it would be like it didn't happen. James further stated that if she had known that it would he held against her she would have contested it, meaning the charge of attempting to commit prostitution. The facts of the incident of April 25, 1978, reveal that officers of the Tampa Police Department on that date went to a bar known as the Huddle Lounge, which is located on North Dale Mabry in Tampa, Florida, to investigate possible acts of prostitution that were occurring in the bar. The two officers, Halstead and Slater, entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. At that time Officer Halstead noticed a woman identified as Troy Taylor who was smiling at Officer Halstead. Halstead and Slater then went to the table where Troy Taylor was located and took a seat. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner came to the table and entered into the conversation that was being conducted. While the Petitioner was present, Taylor discussed with the two officers the arrangement for a "date" between the officers, Taylor and the Petitioner. Use of the word "date" meant the making of arrangements for the women to commit acts of prostitution. Taylor stated that the price for the "date" would be fifty dollars ($50.00) for each officer and told the officers to follow them to the apartment of the woman which would be used for the "date". Taylor and the Petitioner left in their automobile and the officers followed them to the apartment of Taylor and the Petitioner. Once inside the apartment, Taylor asked the officers which officer was going to go with what woman and then stated to Halstead that he should go with her. The Petitioner then went with Officer Slater into her bedroom. When in the bedroom, Slater asked James about the money which had been discussed in the bar as a payment for the act of prostitution. James told the officer to place the money on the bookshelf and she then removed her clothes. The amount of money that was placed there was fifty dollars ($50.00). James instructed the officer to take off his clothes and he complied with her request. She asked him to go into the bathroom and when in the bathroom she stated that she would have to examine his genitalia to determine if he was clean and if he had "V.D." She examined his penis and took him back into the bedroom and told him to lie down. The officer then asked James what he would get for his fifty dollars ($50.00) and in response James told him on several occasions to lie down. She then removed his shorts and moved her head toward the area of his penis, at which he asked what he would get for the fifty dollars ($50.00) by the question, "Half and half?", meaning oral sex and intercourse, to which the Petitioner responded, "Yes." The officer then stated that he had changed his mind and got up from the bed and placed the Petitioner under arrest.
Recommendation IT IS RECOMMENDED that the request by the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, to transfer the alcoholic beverage license associated with the Ringside Bar at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida, into her name as licensee be DENIED. 3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. HEARING OFFICER Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the 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, James Battle (Battle), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1988, 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 Battle. 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 Battle 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 Battle 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 cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Battle filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Battle 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 record, 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 Battle on December 18, 1987, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1982 and 1983, while a junior and senior in high school, Battle used marijuana approximately 15 times. He has not used marijuana since his graduation from high school in 1983, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Battle's background, that Battle possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana during high school. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Battle, born May 18, 1965, used marijuana approximately 15 times, the last time being over 6 years ago when he was 18 years of age and a senior in high school. He has not used marijuana since, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. 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, Battle has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one year. His evaluations have been 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. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, and following his graduation from high school, Battle has been continuously employed. Additionally, he has served in the National Guard for almost five years, and attained the rank of E3. Overall, Battle 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, James Battle, 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, FL 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 for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983, Walter Taylor (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 66856. On December 23, 19851, Respondent was certified by Petitioner, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 66855. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Riviera Beach Police Department (Riviera Beach PD) as a law enforcement officer. In April 1994, Respondent and his wife were divorced. They had been married 14 years and had minor children. Prior to the divorce, Respondent had several confrontations with his wife regarding her relationship with another man, a Mr. Chilton, whom she had met in or around 1988. During one confrontation in April 1993, Respondent slapped his then wife. At times, Mr. Chilton was present when the confrontations took place. At no time prior to the divorce did Respondent harm or threaten to harm Mr. Chilton. Subsequent to the divorce, Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton continued their relationship. In August 1994, Respondent wanted to attend his family’s reunion in New York but had insufficient funds to take his children with him. Respondent’s ex-wife agreed to attend the reunion with them. With her financial support, everyone could attend the reunion. Respondent and his ex-wife agreed to a pre- arranged time for them to meet on August 11, 1994, and drive to the reunion together. On August 11, 1994, prior to the pre-arranged time, Respondent and his children were packed and ready to leave. Respondent attempted to contact his ex-wife, so they could depart early. He called several places but to no avail. Having failed to locate his ex-wife, Respondent concluded that she was at Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent called Mr. Chilton’s apartment several times only to get an answering machine. He drove to Mr. Chilton’s apartment. By this time, it was approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Chilton’s apartment complex, he observed both Mr. Chilton’s and his ex-wife’s vehicles in the parking area. Respondent knocked on Mr. Chilton’s apartment door but received no response. Having knocked from two to five minutes, Respondent left but stopped nearby at a telephone. He repeatedly called Mr. Chilton’s apartment and again the answering machine answered. Respondent was convinced that his ex-wife was in Mr. Chilton’s apartment and that they were refusing to answer the telephone or the door. Respondent was upset and frustrated. Respondent returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment and began knocking again. The more he knocked, the more frustrated he became. His knocks became harder and louder until he was pounding the door. No one answered the door. Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton were afraid to open the door. At all times, Mr. Chilton and the Respondent’s ex-wife were inside the apartment. The door was locked and the deadbolt was engaged. Becoming more and more frustrated, Respondent hit the apartment door two or three times with both hands, arms raised, palms forward and with the weight of his body behind him. The force applied by Respondent knocked down the door. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment beyond the door frame. He told his ex-wife to come outside with him and talk. She immediately complied. While exiting Mr. Chilton’s apartment, Respondent informed Mr. Chilton to bill him for the door. The door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment was damaged beyond repair and the area surrounding the door was severely damaged. The dead bolt area on the door was bulged. The area on the door jam in which the dead bolt slid had popped and come loose and was indented. The door handle was very loose. The trim on the doorway was split. On many occasions Respondent has been involved in law enforcement raids in which he, personally, has had to break down doors with his body. The method used by Respondent to break down the doors during the raids was not the same method used by him on August 11, 1994. Even though Respondent’s action forced open the door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment, he reacted out of frustration, not with the intent to force the door open. However, Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. He should not have returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment but waited for his ex-wife until the prearranged time. Respondent’s actions could have escalated the situation into a more serious incident. He exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others. The incident was reported to the Martin County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies on the scene took pictures and completed a report. Mr. Chilton did not want to file criminal charges against Respondent but only wanted his door repaired. The Deputies assisted Mr. Chilton in somewhat securing the door, so that it would at least close. Approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 12, 1994, Respondent telephoned Mr. Chilton. Respondent apologized for the damage to the door and agreed to pay for the damage. Subsequently, Respondent telephoned the apartment complex’s manager and agreed to pay for the damage to the door. The cost of the door was $352.99. A payment plan was arranged in which Respondent would pay for the damage in installments. Due to financial constraints, Respondent was unable to comply with the payment plan as agreed upon. The final payment was made on or about February 2, 1995. Respondent had no reason associated with his law enforcement duties to enter Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent was off-duty and out-of uniform. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment without permission or invitation. Respondent is responsible for the damage to the door of Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Prior to the incident on August 11, 1994, in or around June 1994, Respondent received training in Anger Management. On August 3, 1994, Respondent was promoted to Sergeant, on a probationary status, by the Riviera Beach PD. As a result of the incident on August 11, 1994, the Riviera Beach PD conducted a personnel investigation. On January 24, 1995, it issued a notice of intent to take disciplinary action against Respondent -– a demotion from a Sergeant to a Patrol Officer, which included a five percent cut in salary. The disciplinary action was taken by the Riviera Beach PD. On November 2, 1994, Petitioner’s Probable Cause Panel issued Respondent a Letter of Guidance for the act of committing battery (slapping) upon his then wife in April 1993. At the time of the issuance of the Letter of Guidance, Respondent had successfully completed the Probable Cause Intervention Program. The Probable Cause Panel was not aware of the pending disciplinary action against Respondent by the Riviera Beach PD involving the incident of August 11, 1994. Neither Respondent nor the Riviera Beach PD notified the Probable Cause Panel of the pending disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Suspending Respondent’s certification for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1997.
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.
