The Issue Whether the conduct of Petitioner violated the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. As a result, Respondent maintains and operates a correctional facility, commonly referred to as the Pinellas County Detention Center, or Pinellas County Jail. Petitioner is a detention deputy employed by Respondent at the Pinellas County Jail (Jail) and has been so employed for approximately fifteen years. Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioner is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On May 10, 1997, while employed as a detention deputy by the Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to the B-Wing of the South Division working on the third shift. While on break that day, Petitioner went to the booking area of the Jail to meet his wife for lunch. Petitioner's wife, an employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, was working that same shift in the booking area. When Petitioner arrived in the booking area, in addition to his wife, also present were Detention Deputies Larry Potts, Lloyd Spain, Denise Borland and Detention Lieutenant Krista Rauch. Spain and Borland were processing an individual being booked into the Jail while Potts was assisting Rice’s wife. Lieutenant Rauch was located at the booking desk in a glassed area. On May 10, 1997, at the time the events in paragraph 3 were transpiring, Mathew Robinson was being booked into the Jail. After a portion of the booking process had been completed, Robinson was seated on a bench in the booking area awaiting a routine medical screening. During this process, Robinson became disruptive and began screaming and yelling. As a result thereof, Spain attempted to calm Robinson and de- escalate his disruptive behavior. When Robinson remained uncooperative, Spain, with the assistance of Potts, took physical control of Robinson and escorted him out of the booking area through a door commonly referred to as the “blue door.” Robinson was not shackled or handcuffed. Petitioner remained in the booking area. After Spain and Potts left the booking area with Robinson, Petitioner detected the shuffling of feet in the hallway area on the other side of the blue door and he proceeded through the door to investigate. Petitioner then observed Potts and Spain with Robinson who was in a half-squatted position with his knees bent. Following behind Potts, Spain, Robinson and Petitioner, was Detention Deputy Borland who had subsequently come through the blue door into the corridor in order to photograph the inmate. As Spain and Potts continued to escort Robinson down the hall, Petitioner followed behind them at a distance until they arrived at the vestibule area at the entrance to the C- Wing. At the entrance to C-Wing, there is a control booth that protrudes into the corridor area. During this entire escort process, Robinson remained unrestricted, other than his being held by Spain and Potts. At some point prior to the incident described in paragraph 10 below, Lieutenant Rauch left the booking area and entered the hallway through the blue door. When Spain and Potts arrived at the C-Wing entrance, the gate was already open. Robinson had escalated his level of resistance by screaming, yelling, fighting, and opposing efforts to walk him through the gate. Prior to the entry of Robinson and the detention deputies into the vestibule area of C-Wing, Robinson began trying to pull away from Spain and Potts and his feet were off the floor in an attempt to break the officers’ efforts to move him forward. However, Robinson did not throw punches, strike blows, or kick. During the escalation of resistance by Robinson, Spain did not lose physical control of Robinson, although he was pulled off balance. Robinson did break away from the hold being exercised by Potts for a few seconds. Neither Potts nor Spain fell to the ground. Neither Spain nor Potts requested the assistance of Petitioner nor were they aware of Petitioner’s presence. As the struggle continued, Petitioner intervened by kicking Robinson in the buttocks. Spain and Potts then took Robinson to the ground. Petitioner assisted in restraining Robinson and escorting him into C-1 Wing. Neither Petitioner nor other deputies have been trained to kick an inmate in the buttocks as a control technique. Kicking is generally used as a technique to impair or disable an inmate. At the time Petitioner kicked Robinson, he was not attempting to impair or disable Robinson. Deputies are taught to kick as a defensive maneuver when an inmate is approaching an officer. The kicking technique generally involves striking the inmate on the side of the leg in the calf area in order to effectuate a take down or redirect the inmate to the ground. The training provided to correctional officers in the use of kicking technique limits its use to circumstances requiring a counter- move to impede a subject’s movement toward an officer. At the time that Petitioner kicked Robinson, Robinson was not coming toward Petitioner. The kicking technique utilized by Petitioner lifting his leg, bringing it to hip level, thrusting the foot forward and kicking the inmate in the buttocks, is not an appropriate defensive tactic. This is not taught as a defensive tactic because it involves striking what is commonly called a “red zone.” Red zone areas include the head, neck and spine, and groin areas. A blow to red zone areas is appropriate only in a deadly force situation because such a blow may cause serious injury or death to the person struck. It is uncontested that the struggle Robinson engaged in with Spain and Potts did not create a situation where the use of deadly force would be appropriate. On May 10, 1997, shortly after the incident in question, Borland prepared an incident report in which she made no reference to Petitioner’s kicking Robinson. Borland was questioned about the incident by Corporal Powell of the Internal Affairs Division on May 28, 1997. During this inquiry, Borland made no reference to the kicking incident. Thereafter, Borland spoke to her supervisor, Lieutenant Rauch, and expressed her discomfort with preparing a report that would implicate Petitioner in misconduct. Lieutenant Rauch instructed Borland to prepare a report reflecting what Borland had observed. Borland complied with Lieutenant Rauch’s directive and, on May 30, 1997, prepared a memorandum. In the memorandum, directed to Corporal Powell, Borland indicated that on May 10, 1997, she had observed Petitioner kick Robinson. In June 1997, Borland told Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte that she did not want to write the May 30, 1997, memorandum. However, Borland stated that Lieutenant Rauch told her that both Borland and Rauch could get in trouble if Borland failed to write the memorandum. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation regarding the incident of May 10, 1997. As part of that investigation, on June 23, 1997, the Chain-of- Command Board took a sworn statement from Petitioner. After giving his account of the events, Petitioner was asked questions regarding the incident by Corporal Powell and Sergeant R. Alphonso of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau. Prior to the questioning, Corporal Powell instructed Petitioner “to answer questions directed to you during this interview truthfully and to the best of your knowledge.” While being questioned regarding the events of May 10, 1997, Petitioner admitted that he kicked Robinson in the buttocks and that this was observed by Lieutenant Rauch. However, from his point of view, the struggle that ensued between Robinson, Potts and Spain immediately prior to the kick could not have been observed by Lieutenant Rauch. From Lieutenant Raunch’s vantage point, as seen by Petitioner, her view of that struggle had to have been obstructed by the control room. Petitioner’s perception of where Lieutenant Rauch was at the time of the struggle is not inconsistent with that of other detention deputies in the immediate vicinity at that time. In response to questions during the proceeding of June 23, 1997, Petitioner was adamant in his denial that Lieutenant Rauch did not observe the struggle that Spain and Potts had with Inmate Robinson immediately before Robinson was kicked. Throughout his interrogation, Petitioner did not waver from this position, notwithstanding statements from Sergeant Alfonso that Lieutenant Rauch’s written statement gave “the inference that she saw that struggle.” Although Petitioner had responded when asked about the discrepancy in his statement and that of Lieutenant Rauch, Sergeant Alfonso continued to question Petitioner concerning whether the lieutenant observed the struggle. Among the questions asked by Sergeant Alfonso were: “Now, are you saying that [Lieutenant Rauch’s] being untruthful, that she’s lying about this?”; “And so what you’re telling us today is that Lieutenant Rauch is lying about seeing the incident?”; and “Your opinion is that Lieutenant Rauch is a liar?” In response to these questions, Petitioner answered in the affirmative. During the course of giving his sworn statement, Petitioner was asked whether he believed that Deputy Borland “lied in her statement against him.” Petitioner was also asked whether it was his “belief that Lieutenant Rauch put Deputy Borland up to that lie.” Petitioner answered both of these questions in the affirmative. At the time Petitioner responded to these questions, he believed that he was answering truthfully. There were two reasons that Petitioner believed that Borland’s second account of the incident was inaccurate and that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland what to put in the memorandum. First, Petitioner was aware that Borland’s May 10, 1997, incident report made no reference to the kicking incident and that Borland first mentioned the kicking incident in the memorandum dated May 30, 1997. Second, Petitioner based this belief on comments made to him by his wife. According to Petitioner’s wife, Borland had told another officer, Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte, that Lieutenant Rauch directed Borland to write the memorandum. Petitioner mistakenly concluded or interpreted this comment to mean that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland specifically what to include in the memorandum. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) presented its entire investigative file to the Chain-of-Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain-of-Command Board met and, after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Petitioner the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 021, relating to the custody arrestees/prisoners, a Level Five violation; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 024, relating to insubordination, use of profanity or insulting language towards a superior officer, a Level Five violation. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations is the basis for assigning 60 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner was assessed 60 disciplinary points. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for 60 points to be from a minimum penalty of a seven-day suspension to a maximum penalty of termination. In the instant case, Petitioner was assessed a ten-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in kicking inmate Robinson did not constitute a good correctional practice, and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of a correctional officer in an altercation is to engage in defensive maneuvers and to gain control of the inmate creating the disturbance. Although correctional officers are allowed to defend themselves, kicking an inmate in the buttocks serves no correctional purpose, does not constitute the proper use of defensive tactics and is not designed to maintain control of an inmate or a situation. Kicking an arrestee or inmate in the buttocks area is not appropriate absent a situation where great bodily harm is being threatened by the inmate. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in responding to questions during the course of giving a sworn statement do not constitute insubordination. Respondent was required to answer all questions truthfully, that is the truth as he knew or perceived it to be. In the instant case, Petitioner's comments were not made voluntarily nor were they directed to Lieutenant Rauch. Instead, Petitioner's statements were made in response to questions from a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau who was investigating the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of the conduct alleged in Counts I and II of the charging document and suspending Petitioner, without pay, for eight (8) days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIED Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 B. Norris Rickey Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be terminated from employment with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Mr. Davis was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. He had been employed by the Sheriff's Office for 11 years. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was assigned to work a post in the healthcare facility of the Pinellas County jail, beginning at 7:00 a.m. This facility houses inmates who have medical problems. The inmates are placed in pods, and the pods are monitored by using direct supervision, meaning a deputy is stationed inside the pod with the inmates and is able to directly monitor and interact with the inmates. Additionally, the deputy supervising the inmates is able to summon medical assistance within the building for the inmates. On July 26, 2010, Inmate Kyle Howard (Mr. Howard) was housed in the pod that Mr. Davis was supervising. On that same day, Mr. Howard came to Mr. Davis and told Mr. Davis that he was ill. Sometime during the day, two inmates came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was sick and throwing up a lot. Standing about 30 feet away from Mr. Howard, Mr. Davis witnessed Mr. Howard "over the toilet in a vomiting mode." Around 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2010, the nurse, who gave medications to the inmates, gave Mr. Howard a suppository for the nausea. Sometime between 3:08 p.m. and 3:47 p.m., an inmate came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was not responsive. Mr. Davis went to Mr. Howard's cell, discovered that Mr. Howard was not responsive, and called for emergency medical assistance. Mr. Howard was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. One of the responsibilities of Mr. Davis was to interact with inmates to determine what problems may exist and to summon medical assistance if necessary. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis did not attempt to speak to Mr. Howard to determine what was wrong with him and did not call for medical assistance until Mr. Howard was found unresponsive. Mr. Davis was required to check on the inmates in the pod every 30 minutes to monitor the wellness and security of the inmates in the pod. Mr. Davis is required to check each cell and inmate during these checks. After each 30-minute check, Mr. Davis is required to record on a Daily Log Report that he performed the check. The Daily Log Reports are part of the official records of the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Davis admitted that he did not make a complete check every 30 minutes as he was required to do. He walked part of the way down the hall and observed some but not all the inmates. He entered in the Daily Log Report that he had made the checks as required. During some of Mr. Davis's shift on July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was playing Hearts on the computer and was checking Yahoo and MSN. Prior to the incident at issue, Mr. Davis had been disciplined two times for inappropriate use of computers while on duty. Mr. Davis has admitted that he committed the violations that are charged, but contends that he should be suspended rather than terminated from his employment. The Sheriff Office's General Order 10-2 sets forth the guidelines to be used in the application of discipline. The range of penalties is based on the severity of the violation, from Level One, which is the least severe, to Level Five, which is the most severe. Failing to monitor Mr. Howard and to call for medical assistance for Mr. Howard are severe violations and are Level Five violations. Failing to accurately record his 30-minute checks, because he was not checking each of the inmates during his rounds, is also a severe violation and is a Level Five violation. General Order 10-2 provides that two Level Five violations are assigned 60 points. The disciplinary range for 60 points is a seven-day suspension to termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Mr. Davis's employment with the Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Jimmie Davis 2086 Pine Ridge Drive Clearwater, Florida 33763 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Cynthia Y. Pall is employed by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) as a sergeant. Ms. Pall has been employed by the HCSO since May of 1977. She is a black female. In October, 1991, Ms. Pall applied for a promotion to detention lieutenant. She did not receive the promotion. The position went to Michael Sawyer, a white male. Applicants for promotion to detention lieutenant were reviewed by Colonel David Parrish, the HCSO Detention Department Commander. Mr. Parrish has a Master's degree in criminology and has worked for the HCSO since May, 1974. Since 1981, Mr. Parrish has been responsible for operation of the HCSO jail system. He was promoted to his current position in 1985 and is the highest ranking officer in the Detention Department. Mr. Parrish has historically sought recommendations for internal promotion from the supervisors in the Detention Department. Each supervisor is encouraged to nominate one employee from within the supervisor's squad and one employee from outside the supervisor's squad. Promotional candidates are required to have completed a sufficient period of time in their current positions and to have successfully passed an examination to be eligible for promotion. A list of "eligibles" is prepared identifying those employees eligible for the promotion. From those eligible, Mr. Parrish reviews the materials and prepares an information package about each candidate for the promotion. Each information package includes the resume submitted by each candidate. Twelve persons sought the position at issue in this proceeding. Seven of the twelve, including five white males, had been passed over for promotion to lieutenant previously. In reviewing candidates for promotion, Mr. Parrish considers the experience, test scores, annual performance evaluations, education and recommendations of the applicants. No one factor is determinative; the overall quality of the candidates is paramount in the decision making process. Some employees who lacked substantial college education have been promoted. Many individuals, male and female, black and white, have applied and been passed over for promotion. Mr. Parrish reviews the eligibles with two Detention Department majors. After review, Mr. Parrish makes a recommendation to the Sheriff as to which person should be promoted. The review and recommendation process has been utilized since 1981 and continues unchanged to the present. With rare exception, Mr. Parrish's recommendations have been followed by the Sheriff. Ms. Pall has been employed by the HCSO since May of 1977. She became a sergeant in 1982, served as an administrative sergeant until approximately 1984, and then became a detention sergeant, the position she presently holds. Most of Ms. Pall's experience has been in the care, custody and control of inmates. She has trained and supervised subordinate employees, and planned and coordinated their work assignments. She created the HCSO victim notification program. She developed a cash accounting system which resulted in increased accountability in the handling of cash within the Detention Department. During her employment as an administrative sergeant, she handled correspondence for Mr. Parrish. She was responsible for facility maintenance, bookkeeping, inspections and inactive records. Michael Sawyer has been employed by the HCSO since the end of 1980 or beginning of 1981. He was initially employed as a correctional officer, serving for about five years as a deputy and then as corporal for three more years. Thereafter, he was promoted to sergeant. During his HCSO employment, Mr. Sawyer worked in the records section for approximately one and a half years, during which time he trained civilians to assume the responsibilities of the position. He worked in the booking section for approximately two years. He thereafter worked on the detention floor for approximately four and a half years and was responsible for care, custody and control of inmates. As a sergeant, Mr. Sawyer was assigned to a special projects unit. During this period, he worked as an accreditation coordinator for two HCSO jail facilities and was responsible for assuring that the facilities would meet standards for accreditation. He also served as the HCSO fire safety officer for approximately two and a half years and was responsible for compliance with fire safety, health department, and worker's compensation regulations and OSHA requirements. At various times during his HCSO employment, Mr. Sawyer has been in a supervisory position, responsible for between five and 20 individuals. Five promotional candidates, including four white males, had worked for the HCSO longer than had the successful applicant, Mr. Sawyer. One white male applicant had worked for the HCSO longer than had Ms. Pall. As to the responsibilities Mr. Sawyer has successfully performed related to special projects and facility accreditation coordination, Ms. Pall has not been provided with similar opportunities. There is no evidence that, as to experience, Ms. Pall is more or less qualified than Mr. Sawyer for the position at issue in this proceeding. The HCSO administers a test of skills required in the lieutenant position to applicants. Of the 100 points available on the test, Ms. Pall scored a 78. Mr. Sawyer scored an 85. At the review immediately prior to the promotional decision at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Pall received a performance evaluation of 89 points. Her evaluator, a black male, wrote that Sgt. Pall needed to visit all areas of the pod more frequently and that she permitted some deputies to become to "familiar" with her. Although good, the performance evaluation score was lower than she had received in the preceding three year period when her scores were 92, 92.75, and 93. At the review immediately prior to the promotional decision at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Sawyer received a performance evaluation of 96.5 points. His evaluator, a white male, wrote that Sawyer was extremely qualified and should receive highest consideration for promotion at the earliest opportunity. At the time of application, Ms. Pall had a high school diploma and had completed one year of studies at Hillsborough Community College. She had completed eight advanced law enforcement training courses. According to Mr. Sawyer's application, he was two credits shy of receiving an Associate in Arts degree from Hillsborough Community College. This information was not correct. Mr. Sawyer needs more than two hours of additional credit to receive the degree. He had completed five advanced law enforcement training courses. Review of educational information was based solely on the information submitted by the applicants. There was no attempt made by the HCSO to verify the education information submitted. Applicants were not required to submit educational transcripts. Although Mr. Sawyer's educational information was apparently overstated on his application, there is no evidence that HCSO officials were aware of the misleading information. There is no evidence that Mr. Sawyer was encouraged by HCSO officials to misstate his educational credentials in order to receive the promotion. There is no evidence that the review of educational credentials was related to the race or gender of the applicants or that, as to the review of said credentials, Ms. Pall was discriminated against on the basis of race or gender. Mr. Sawyer received recommendations for promotion from six persons with whom he had worked. Ms. Pall received two similar recommendations. Based on his review of the foregoing factors and the information available, Mr. Parrish determined that Michael Sawyer was the best qualified candidate for promotion to detention lieutenant. The information was presented to the Sheriff. Michael Sawyer received the promotion. Although the evidence does not establish whether or not Mr. Parrish determined a "ranking" order for the promotional candidates, had Mr. Parrish established a ranking of the candidates, Ms. Pall would have ranked well. There is no evidence of any discord between Mr. Parrish and Ms. Pall. There is no evidence that any HCSO official has stated or implied that Ms. Pall was not qualified for promotion, but rather the evidence establishes that Ms. Pall is clearly qualified for promotion. The HCSO has implemented an affirmative action plan which provides for employment and promotion of female and African-American personnel. The HCSO does not utilize a quota system, but considers minority group status in making employment decisions. Mr. Parrish has previously recommended black females for employment and promotion, including two black women who were promoted to currently held lieutenant positions, Ms. Pall's promotion to sergeant, and a black woman promoted immediately prior to the time the hearing was conducted. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Pall's race or gender were considered in the determination of the best qualified candidate for promotion to detention lieutenant. The evidence establishes that in this case, both Michael Sawyer and Cynthia Y. Pall were qualified for promotion to the rank of detention lieutenant. Based on the information available to the Mr. Parrish and to the Sheriff at the time of the promotion, Michael Sawyer was determined to be the best qualified candidate for promotion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed by Cynthia Y. Pall. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6219 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, which are not supported by citations to the record as is required by Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, twelve names were on the list of eligibles. Rejected as to supervision of Sawyer by Pall, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. 8. Rejected, number of supervised employees is irrelevant. 11. Rejected, irrelevant. Although Mr. Sawyer's educational information was apparently overstated on his application, there is no evidence that HCSO officials were aware of the misleading information or that HCSO officials encouraged Sawyer to misstate his educational credentials in order to receive the promotion or to discriminate against other applicants on the basis of race or gender. 12-13. Rejected, irrelevant. 14. Rejected, subordinate. 15-16. Rejected, as to determination that Sawyer was "not qualified," not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. 17. Rejected, subordinate. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Joe Episcopo, Esquire 1060 West Busch Boulevard Suite 103 Tampa, Florida 33612 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire THOMPSON, SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ Suite 200 109 North Brush Street Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a perceived disability and retaliated against her in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Liberty Correctional Institution (LCI). She was hired as a Correctional Officer in LCI's Security Department effective December 21, 1990. In February 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding her failure to report for duty or to notify the institution of an intended absence. On April 1, 1996, Petitioner's supervisor counseled her regarding her failure to report to work in a timely manner. Petitioner had been tardy to work three times in March 1996. On May 30, 2001, Respondent counseled Petitioner regarding her excessive absenteeism. Petitioner had five unscheduled absences. Respondent promoted Petitioner to Correctional Officer Sergeant effective November 1, 2001. In October 24, 2003, Respondent gave Petitioner an oral reprimand for abuse of sick leave. Petitioner had developed a pattern of absenteeism in conjunction with her regular days off. In December 2004, Respondent gave Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand was based on Petitioner's failure to follow oral and/or written instruction, continued absenteeism, and abuse of sick leave. On July 7, 2007, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. The injury was diagnosed as carpel tunnel syndrome. Petitioner underwent surgery for this condition in December 2007. On or about April 8, 2008, Petitioner reached statutory Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI). Petitioner had a Permanent Impairment Rating (PIR) of six percent. On April 15, 2008, a functional capacity evaluation revealed that Petitioner was able to perform light work with lifting restrictions. The restrictions prevented Petitioner from performing the essential functions of a Correctional Officer. Pursuant to policy, Respondent immediately conducted a job search. At that time, a Clerk Typist Specialist position was available at LCI. Petitioner was qualified to perform that job. She submitted an application for the position on or about June 5, 2008. In a letter dated June 10, 2008, Respondent offered Petitioner the Clerk Typist Specialist position in LCI's Classification Department. On June 26, 2008, Petitioner signed an Acknowledgement, accepting a voluntary demotion from Correctional Officer Sergeant to Clerk Typist Specialist and stating that she agreed to perform the duties of the new position to the best of her ability. Petitioner returned the Acknowledgement to Respondent. At the same time, Petitioner questioned whether she would be able to perform the duties of a Clerk Typist Specialist due to her carpel tunnel condition. In a letter dated June 27, 2008, Respondent requested that Petitioner take an essential functions form to a July 8, 2008, doctor's appointment. Respondent wanted the physician to complete the essential functions form and return it to Respondent by July 18, 2008. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether Petitioner was able to perform as a Clerk Typist Specialist. On or about July 24, 2008, Petitioner advised Respondent that she was going to have a nerve conduction test on July 30, 2008. She advised Respondent that she would provide the results to Respondent as soon as possible. In a letter dated August 20, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that, pending the results of a pre-determination conference, Petitioner could be dismissed from her employment as a Correctional Officer effective September 11, 2008. Respondent proposed this action because Petitioner had not provided Respondent with a doctor's report regarding Petitioner's ability to perform the essential functions of a Clerk Typist Specialist. A pre-determination conference was held on August 27, 2008. In a letter dated September 12, 2008, Warden Douglas advised Petitioner that she would not be dismissed because she had provided medical documentation of her ability to perform the position of a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner began working in that capacity on September 19, 2008. In December 2008, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Respondent's Secretary, Walt McNeil. In the e-mail, Petitioner complained that Respondent had not returned her to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant after being medically cleared to work in that capacity. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner had been medically released to work as a Correctional Officer in December 2008. Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner had made a request or filed an application to return to work as a Correctional Officer at that time. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's doctor to provide an updated opinion regarding Petitioner's ability to work as a Correctional Officer. On or about January 15, 2009, Petitioner's doctor approved Petitioner's return to work as a Correctional Officer with no restrictions. In a memorandum dated February 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was medically cleared to work as a Correctional Officer but that she would need to apply for openings. The memorandum stated that Petitioner had to be reprocessed as a Correctional Officer, including having a drug test and physical examination. The February 9, 2009, memorandum also reminded Petitioner that she would be required to serve another probationary period if she received an appointment as a Correctional Officer. There is no promotion track between the Security Department and the Classification Department. Petitioner applied for four Correctional Officer positions between February and May 2009. Two of the applications were for positions located at LCI. The third application was for a position at Calhoun Correctional Institution (CCI). The fourth application was for a position at Franklin Correctional Institution (FCI). On February 10, 2009, Warden Chris Douglas at LCI declined to interview or rehire Petitioner as a Correctional Officer for position number 7002037. Warden Douglas made this decision based on Petitioner's previous and current employment history showing attendance problems. Petitioner's testimony that she never applied for this position is not persuasive. Petitioner's application for a Correctional Officer position at FCI was never completely processed. In a letter dated April 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she needed to provide additional information to support her application for employment in position number 70039564 at FCI. Petitioner did not respond to the request because she decided that she did not want to commute to work so far from her home. On April 23, 2009, Petitioner received her Performance Planning and Evaluation. Her direct supervisor, Kim Davis, Respondent's Classification Sentence Specialist, rated Petitioner as performing "Above Expectation" in all applicable categories. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner requested Warden Douglas to let her complete her mandatory firearm training because her weapons qualification was about to expire. Warden Douglas promptly responded that she could be scheduled to take the next firearms class. Petitioner re-qualified with specified weapons on May 11, 2009. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was interviewed for a position as a Correctional Officer at LCI. She gave correct and appropriate answers to all questions during the interview. Even so, Warden Douglas decided not to hire Petitioner due to her past and current attendance problems. Warden Adro Johnson did not give Petitioner an interview for Correctional Officer position number 70041507 at CCI. He made his decision in July 2009 based on information indicating that Petitioner was already employed at LCI. In July 2009, Respondent's supervisor counseled Petitioner regarding her attendance. She had been absent for four unscheduled absences in the past 90 days. She had missed approximately 40 work days or eight weeks of work during the 11 months she was in the position of Clerk Typist specialist. On August 3, 2009, Petitioner filed her initial complaint with FCHR. Ms. Davis was the person who trained Petitioner as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner's job included filing documents related to approval or disapproval of inmate visitation. The original documents were sent to the inmates. Respondent was supposed to file copies of the documents in the inmates' classification files. During the time that Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist Specialist, Ms. Davis had to counsel Petitioner approximately ten times regarding the filing of the inmate visitation documents. Ms. Davis stressed the importance of Petitioner completing her work and filing the documents in a timely manner. Additionally, Ms. Davis noted that Petitioner occasionally failed to properly file the documents. Petitioner was trained to remove duplicate copies of documents from inmate files. Duplicate copies of documents could be shredded. Petitioner was not instructed to shred the inmate visitation documents. If the documents were not legible, another copy was supposed to be made, using the copy machine to darken the print. Willie Brown is one of the Assistant Wardens at LCI. His office was close to Petitioner's work area. Assistant Warden Brown occasionally counseled Petitioner regarding the need to file the papers on her desk. On August 18, 2009, Assistant Warden Brown observed a large amount of paperwork that Petitioner had not filed. Once again, Assistant Warden Brown told Petitioner that she needed to file on a timely basis. He explained that Petitioner could file on the schedule she developed, but that it might be necessary to file everyday. Later on August 18, 2009, Heather Barfield, a Correctional Sentence Specialist, observed Petitioner feeding a large amount of paper into a shredder, causing the shredder to jam. Ms. Barfield subsequently attempted to clear the shredder jam and noticed that the papers belonged in the inmates' files. Ms. Barfield reported her observations to Assistant Warden Brown and Cynthia Swier, the Classification Supervisor. Assistant Warden Brown confirmed that the partially shredded documents were legible and should have been filed. Ms. Davis was informed about the shredding incident when she returned to work the following day. Ms. Davis verified that the shredded documents had been legible and were not duplicates of documents in the inmates' files. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner intentionally shredded the documents in order to clear her desk. Petitioner's testimony that she was shredding them because they were not legible is not credible and contrary to more persuasive evidence. On August 26, 2009, Respondent terminated Petitioner employment as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Because she was on probationary status, she had no appeal rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gertrude Berrieum 5032 Martin Luther King Road Bristol, Florida 32321 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether an alleged policy of the Respondent constitutes an unpromulgated "rule" which is an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, David Ansgar Nyberg and Walter William Harris, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are housed in Marion Correctional Institution. The Petitioners are subject to the rules and policies of the Respondent. The Petitioners were sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioners were both denied a requested transfer from Marion Correctional Institution to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution, a level 5A institution. The Petitioners have standing to institute these proceedings. The Respondent. The Respondent, the Department of Corrections, denied a recommendation that the Petitioners be transferred from Marion Correctional Institution to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution. The Respondent, through employees of the Respondent located at its central office (including Fred Roesel and James G. Mitchell), decides where inmates are housed and makes decisions concerning requests for transfers between institutions. The Alleged Policy. In the Initial Complaint filed in case number 91-6189RU and in the Initial Petition filed in case number 91-7540RU, and at the commencement of the formal hearing, Mr. Nyberg indicated that the alleged policy which he believes exists and that the Petitioners are challenging in this proceeding is essentially the following: Any inmate sentenced to prison in Florida pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes, is prohibited from being housed in any institution of the Respondent classified as a level 5A or lower numbered institution regardless of the inmates custody classification, the amount of time the inmate has served, the inmate's behavior or the recommendation of the superintendent of the institution the inmate is housed in. Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following: A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be required to serve no less than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole unless the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, and in the latter event such person shall be punished by death. The Evidence Failed to Prove the Existence of the Alleged Policy. The evidence failed to prove that the precise alleged policy challenged by the Petitioners as stated in finding of fact 8 is an existing policy of the Respondent. The institutions in which inmates are housed by the Respondent are classified as level one through level seven institutions. Generally, the higher the level of an institution, the greater the security. There are four custody grades for inmates: minimum, medium, close and maximum. An inmate's classification determines the security risk of that particular inmate. In determining which institution an inmate should be housed in, the Respondent has a general policy, as specified by Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, to consider many factors, including custody grades, the offense for which sentenced, the type of facility that is recommended and the medical grade of the inmate. It is not the policy of the Respondent to exclude an inmate from being housed in a level 5 or lower level institution without taking into account the inmate's custody grade merely because the inmate was sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent apparently has a policy of not placing inmates in a level 5A institution if, among circumstances not relevant here, the following circumstances exist: The inmate has been classified as close custody grade; and The inmate is serving a life sentence with a mandatory twenty-five years. The apparent policy set out in finding of fact 15 is contained on page 23 of a document referred to as the "Custody Classification Instructions." The apparent policy as set out in the Instructions, unlike the policy challenged by the Petitioners, takes into account, and is based upon, the custody grade of the inmate. Therefore, the apparent policy set out in finding of fact 15 is inconsistent with the policy challenged by the Petitioners and supports a conclusion that the policy challenged by the Petitioners does not exist. An inmate who has been sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes, may be housed in a level 5 or lower level institution as long as the inmate is not classified as close custody. The reason for not housing close custody inmates who meet any of the conditions set out on page 23 of the Custody Classification Instructions in a level 5 or lower level institution is that close custody inmates have not been assigned release dates and, therefore, constitute a greater security risk. The evidence failed to prove that the Custody Classification Instructions are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code. Denial of Mr. Nyberg's Recommended Transfer. It was recommended by personnel at Marion Correctional Institution that Mr. Nyberg be transferred to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution. Mr. Nyberg was classified as close custody at the time the transfer request was made. The recommended transfer of Mr. Nyberg was denied by the Respondent through its Classification Department in Tallahassee, Florida. In light of the fact that Mr. Nyberg was sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes, and was classified in a medium custody grade at the time his transfer request was denied, Mr. Nyberg apparently concluded that the denial of his transfer was based upon the challenged policy. The evidence failed to prove this conclusion is correct. The evidence proved that Mr. Nyberg's transfer was denied after consideration of the length of time he has been in Marion Correctional Institution, the location of his current institution, the recommended time between transfers and the facility recommended. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Nyberg's transfer was denied because of the alleged policy challenged by the Petitioners: his transfer was not denied solely because he was sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes and without regard to his custody grade. Denial of Mr. Harris' Transfer. The Respondent also denied a requested transfer to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution of Mr. Harris. A teletype from the Tallahassee office of the Respondent indicated the following concerning the denial of Mr. Harris' transfer: Transfer to Zephyrhills was disapproved 8-14-91, ACI is now a Category 5-A, cannot house life with 25- mandatory. This explanation was also included as the response from Mr. Harris' classification officer, Simon Ponder, on the form DC-3005 (the request for transfer form) (Petitioner's exhibit 2) filed by Mr. Harris. Mr. Ponder, who is not involved in formulating policies of the Respondent, assumed during the formal hearing that the rational given for denying Mr. Harris' transfer was the same rational for denying Mr. Nyberg's transfer. Mr. Ponder did not testify that he had any personal knowledge of the reason why Mr. Nyberg's transfer was denied, however. At best the evidence concerning Mr. Harris' denied transfer tends to prove that Mr. Harris' transfer was denied because he is serving a life sentence with a mandatory twenty-five years and because he is classified as close custody. Therefore, the denial of Mr. Harris' requested transfer was not made without regard to his custody classification which is an essential factor in the alleged policy challenged by the Petitioners. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Harris' transfer was denied because of the alleged policy challenged by the Petitioners: his transfer was not denied solely because he was sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes and without regard to his custody status. Denial of David Ray Martin's Transfer. The Respondent denied a transfer to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution of David Ray Martin, another inmate. A teletype was sent to the Tallahassee office of the Respondent by Charles Manning, a correctional probation officer II, in which Mr. Manning indicated the following concerning the Mr. Martin's transfer: Subject was recommended for Zephyrhills CI for a good adjustment transfer. Please note that he has a 25-year mandatory; and, therefore, does not meet the criteria for a Category 5-A institution. Please divert to Polk CI 580, and excuse the error. Thanks, Chuck. Mr. Manning, who is not involved in establishing policy for the Respondent, admitted at the formal hearing that he had incorrectly assumed when he sent the teletype quoted in finding of fact 30 that the Respondent had such a policy. Mr. Manning's incorrect assumption concerning the policy of the Respondent was probably based upon the language of the Custody Classification Instructions concerning inmates classified as close custody who are serving a life sentence with a mandatory twenty-five years. Mr. Manning apparently confused the policy which may be evidenced in the Custody Classification Instructions with the alleged policy at issue in this proceeding. Conclusion. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the Respondent has a policy that inmates who are sentenced pursuant to Section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes, may not be housed in a level 5 or lower numbered level institution without regard to the custody classification of the inmate, the amount of time the inmate has served, the inmate's behavior or the recommendation of the superintendent of the institution the inmate is housed in. At best the Petitioners presented evidence which may support a finding that the Respondent has a policy that inmates who are classified as close custody and who are serving a life sentence with a mandatory twenty-five years may not be housed in a level 5A institution. That is not the policy being challenged by the Petitioners, however, and no such finding of fact is necessary to dispose of these cases.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1990.
Findings Of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 2-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 10 and 11. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certification as a corrections officer be revoked, but that the revocation be suspended and respondent placed on probation for a-period of two years at which time if there is no further evidence of misconduct by the Respondent, the revocation be remitted and the probation terminated. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 22nd day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esq. 233 W. College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a police officer, violated section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to introduce, take, or attempt to take contraband into the Hamilton County Jail for an inmate of the jail, so as to result in a finding that Respondent has not maintained good moral character; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement responsible for the execution, administration, implementation, and evaluation of the powers, duties, and functions established under sections 943.085 through 943.255, Florida Statutes, and is charged with certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. § 943.12, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 943.1395, Petitioner is authorized to investigate incidents in which certified law enforcement officers are alleged to have failed to maintain compliance with the minimum qualifications for certification, and to take disciplinary action against law enforcement officers found to have failed to maintain those qualifications. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, and holds Law Enforcement Certification Number 313297. She was initially certified on January 8, 2014. On March 11, 2019, Respondent served responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Admission. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that her responses were accurate. As discussed at the final hearing, and as reflected in the preliminary statement, Requests for Admissions 1 through 17 were accepted. Respondent has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary action. On February 28, 2017, Respondent was employed as an officer with the City of Jasper Police Department. On that date, Respondent was in a romantic relationship with Derrick Harris. On the morning of February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris turned himself in on an active warrant for what was apparently a misdemeanor offense in Duval County, and held in the Hamilton County Jail in Jasper, Florida. On February 28, 2017, from roughly 10:00 a.m. to roughly 4:35 p.m., Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke by telephone on nine separate occasions, for a total of roughly one hour and 50 minutes.2/ In addition, Respondent visited Mr. Harris in the jail visitation area, separated by glass and using a telephone handset, from 10:23 a.m. until 10:53 a.m. Thus, during the day, Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke for about two hours and 20 minutes. Much of the discussion between Respondent and Mr. Harris centered on how he would be able to come up with a $3,500 cash bond to get him released, and getting money put on the phone so he could make calls from the jail. During telephone call 713077714, which started at 2:17:32 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Respondent was upset that Mr. Harris’s mug shot had appeared on an unofficial website. She was also upset that a rumor was going around that she was responsible for Mr. Harris’s arrest. The tone of her voice ranged from angry to upset to tearful. During the call, Mr. Harris complained of being hungry. It was not the first time he made that complaint. He also stated, “I wish I had a cell phone -- if I had a cell phone I’d talk to you all night.” After a brief discussion, initiated by Mr. Harris, of how Respondent could slip a sack of Arby’s and a phone in her police vest, the idea was quickly shot down, with Mr. Harris stating that “I don’t want you to do nothing to jeopardize your job.” The entirety of the discussion lasted scarcely more than 90 seconds, and quickly reverted to a continuation of the discussion of how to raise bond money. Neither Arby’s nor a cell phone was brought up again. Respondent testified convincingly that “I didn’t -- I really didn’t plan on actually taking [anything in] -- I was just explaining over the phone because I was upset.” Her testimony is accepted. Idle chatter does not manifest intent to commit a crime, nor does it evince an agreement to do so. The evidence in this case establishes clearly, and it is found that Respondent had no actual intent to bring Arby’s or a cell phone, to Mr. Harris at the jail, that Respondent and Mr. Harris made no agreement to do so, and that she did not attempt to do so. Captain Bennett established that the Hamilton County Jail has: standing policy as per the Sheriff. When we come -- when an inmate comes into the jail facility, and they are indigent and don't have any money on them at the time, or they come in before commissary has arrived, he allows for a one-time initial issue, if there is someone that can bring underwear, socks, T-shirts, boxers, soap, deodorant, and basically hygiene items as for someone to, you know, be able to survive in the jail setting for -- you know, until they can get money there. Because everything else after that is usually purchased off of commissary, sir. Mr. Harris was new to the jail. He stated on several occasions during his conversations with Respondent that he did not have any “canteen.” Thus, despite the fact that “clothing” is listed as an item of contraband in section 951.22(1), and that Petitioner pled Respondent’s conspiracy to introduce clothing as an element of the second Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence firmly establishes that Respondent’s delivery of underwear, t-shirts, socks, and hygiene items to the jail for the benefit of Mr. Harris was done through regular channels as duly authorized by the Sheriff or officer in charge. During the course of telephone call 71307815, which started at 3:15:45 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris can be clearly heard, on more than one occasion, asking jail staff what could be brought to him. The replies of jail staff were indistinct. However, Mr. Harris told Respondent that he could have socks, a t-shirt, deodorant, and the like. It was reasonable, based on Mr. Harris’s recitation, for Respondent to (correctly) understand that clothing, including socks and a t- shirt, were authorized by the correctional officer in charge. Mr. Harris stated that the correctional officer “didn’t say nothing about food.” He suggested that Respondent bring a couple of packs of ramen noodles and “see if they’ll let you give them to me.” Later during that call, Mr. Harris stated that Respondent would have “to ask them could I get the noodles.” It is clear that Mr. Harris wanted some ramen noodles, and that Respondent was willing to bring them. It is equally clear from the evidence as a whole that neither Respondent nor Mr. Harris intended to introduce the ramen noodles, or any other item, into the jail without permission from the correctional officer in charge. In order to avoid bringing anything improper into the jail, Respondent decided, “I’m going to message Captain Bennett over the Facebook because I was friend with him on Facebook. And I asked him what was allowed to be brought in.” At 4:07 p.m. on the afternoon of February 28, 2017, Respondent sent a direct message to Captain Bennett asking (verbatim): Would i be able to bring him some soap and deodorant and something to eat in there If they gonna pick him up for transport will i be able to see him before he go? Captain Bennett responded that “You can take him some soap and deodorant. I’m sure they will if the bond isn’t posted. Will have to see what’s going on about a visit.” The first and third sentences of the response are fairly straightforward, and directed towards Respondent’s first request (soap and deodorant), and her last request (a visit). The second sentence is ambivalent if not confusing, and could reasonably be understood to her second request, and to mean that jail staff would allow Respondent to bring Mr. Harris some food “if the bond isn’t posted.” In the context of the questions asked by Respondent, that is the most logical meaning, since soap and deodorant and a possible visit were already specifically addressed. Respondent gathered some items, including boxers, t-shirts, socks, body wash, deodorant, and the like, and placed them in a plastic bag with several packages of ramen noodles. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal the noodles. Respondent took the plastic bag to the jail. She drove her personal vehicle and was not in uniform. She tapped on the glass behind, which the correctional officer on-duty sat, and asked the correctional officer if the items could be taken to Mr. Harris. Respondent did not ask to take the bag to Mr. Harris herself. A correctional officer came from within the secured area, “and took out of the bag what was allowed in there.” There was no testimony as to which of the items, including the ramen noodles, made their way to Mr. Harris, and which, if any, were returned to Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent was not trying to, and did not attempt to introduce contraband into the jail outside of regular channels and without the actual knowledge and authorization of the correctional officer in charge.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 24th day of June, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of introducing or possessing contraband on the grounds of a state correctional institution, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional officer on October 24, 1995. Respondent holds correctional certificate number 159550. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Bay Correctional Facility, a state correctional institution. During her employment, Respondent had contact with Zachary Richards, an inmate at Bay Correctional Facility. On August 23, 1996, Captain Ronnie Holland spoke to Inmate Richards regarding a complaint that Inmate Richards had made disrespectful remarks about an official. In order to avoid a disciplinary report for disrespecting the official, Inmate Richards gave Captain Holland a brown paper bag on which a personal letter had been written. Inmate Richards indicated that Respondent wrote the personal letter and gave it to him. Captain Holland gave the brown paper bag to Inspector Chris Hubbard along with his report. Inspector Hubbard interviewed Inmate Richards who claimed that he and Respondent had been writing letters to each other for some time. Inmate Richards signed a sworn affidavit in support of his claim that he received the letter written on the brown paper bag from Respondent. Inspector Hubbard interviewed Respondent who denied any knowledge concerning the letter on the brown paper bag. Inspector Hubbard obtained Respondent's known handwriting samples from the portion of the master control log which she maintained during her employment. He submitted these samples along with the brown paper bag to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory for comparison. Donald G. Pribbenow is a forensic document examiner employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the Pensacola Regional Crime Laboratory. He is an expert with 17 and 1/2 years of experience in comparing handwriting samples to determine their authorship. Mr. Pribbenow examined the writing on the brown paper bag and compared it to Respondent's known handwriting samples. Mr. Pribbenow determined that the person who wrote the submitted known writings was the same person who wrote the questioned writing on the brown paper bag. The result of Mr. Pribbenow's examination is persuasive evidence that Respondent wrote the letter to Inmate Richards on the brown paper bag. On September 16, 1996, Respondent was terminated from Bay Correctional Facility for being involved in an improper relationship.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period not to exceed two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lori DeFisher 4123 West 21st Street Panama City, Florida 32405
