The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact By application dated January 3, 1998, Jerry George Sardone, Jr. (Petitioner), made application for licensure as a community association manager by examination. Petitioner's application was received by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers (Respondent), on or about January 15, 1998. A section entitled "ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS" was located on the first page of the application. The section provided, among other things, the following: Pursuant to Rule 61B-55.004(5)(a)5.[sic], Florida Administrative Code, failing to provide full and complete disclosure or failing to provide accurate information on this application for licensure or in materials subsequently provided to the Division [Division of Professions] will result in the denial of this application. Question numbered 17 of the application inquired, among other things, about Petitioner's criminal background. Question numbered 17 stated in pertinent part: C) Criminal * * * 2. Have you ever been convicted or been found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or misdemeanor? Yes ( ) No ( ) This question applies to any violation of the laws of any state, territory or country without regard to whether the matter is under appeal or you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled or pardoned. Petitioner checked "no" to the above inquiry. If an applicant checked "yes" to the above inquiry, the applicant was required to respond to additional inquiries regarding the applicant's criminal background. One of the additional inquiries involved the outcome of the criminal situation, and one of the possible outcomes listed was "Charges Dismissed (Nol Pros entered)." By letter dated March 5, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner that, among other things, his application was deficient. The deficiency indicated was that the criminal history received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that Petitioner had a criminal history that he had not revealed on his application. The letter indicated the specific criminal history as follows: Specifically, you [Petitioner] were arrested on April 21, 1980 by the Sheriff's Office, West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with Failure to Appear for Arraignment/Resisting Arrest with Violence. You were arrested on November 15, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. You were arrested on December 30, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Burglary Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon. The disposition of these incidents are either unclear or not known. The letter requested, among other things, certain information regarding the arrests, including disposition, within 60 days. By letter dated April 7, 1998, Petitioner responded to Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner provided certified copies of the courts' disposition records regarding the arrests in Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner also indicated in his letter that he had mistakenly recalled that the charges were dismissed and, therefore, had not included them on his application. By letter dated May 6, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for licensure based upon Petitioner's failure to establish that he possessed good moral character. Respondent indicated, among other things, the basis for its determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character, namely, Petitioner's failure to include any arrests on his application, his arrest record, and his response that he submitted to the arrest record. As to the arrest and charge on April 21, 1980, Petitioner pled guilty on June 23, 1980, to and was convicted of failure to appear for arraignment and a lesser charge of resisting arrest without violence. Adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was sentenced to six months probation. As to the arrest and charge on November 15, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on January 5, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Petitioner was ordered to pay $250 or spend five days in jail, and his license was ordered revoked. As to the arrest and charge on December 30, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on July 21, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of attempted petit larceny. The disposition was a conditional discharge.2 Respondent included another arrest in its letter dated May 6, 1998, which was not indicated in its letter dated March 5, 1998. The arrest occurred on December 9, 1984, when Petitioner was arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department in Florida and charged with willful and wanton reckless driving. The disposition of that arrest was not established at hearing. It is undisputed that Petitioner failed to include any of the criminal history on his application for licensure. Even if Petitioner thought that the charges were dismissed, as he indicated in his response letter, the application provided Petitioner an opportunity to list the charges and to indicate that they were dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers, enter a final order denying the application of Jerry George Sardone, Jr., for licensure as a community association manager by examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner should be permitted to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact In September 2003, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by the State of Florida as a real estate sales associate. In an application section titled "Background Information" question 1 asks in relevant part, "[h]ave you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . ." to which the Petitioner responded in the affirmative. "Background Information" question 4 in relevant part asks, "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, vocation, or business been revoked, annulled, suspended, relinquished, surrendered, or withdrawn . . ." to which the Respondent replied in the affirmative. Question 1 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the incident(s) by completion of "form 0050-1." Question 4 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the termination(s) by completion of "form 0060-1." The disclosure forms completed by the Petitioner (if any) are not in the Respondent's files and are unavailable for review. The Petitioner's application package was presented to the Commission on December 16, 2003. After considering his presentation, the Commission denied his application and instructed him to return with additional information related to the disclosed charges. The Petitioner apparently sought reconsideration, and his application package was again presented to the Commission on March 17, 2004. After reconsidering the Petitioner's background, the Commission again denied his application. The Petitioner then sought an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of his application. On or about July 26, 2000, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with stalking. The Commission's records indicate that the Petitioner completed a pretrial program and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service. At the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that he was placed on probation for six months, and had to complete a six- month psychological evaluation. The stalking charge was nolle prossed. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that at the time of the stalking charge, he was working at a retail establishment. The object of his attention was a 16-year-old female who was working in the vicinity. The Petitioner was approximately 36 years old. The Petitioner asserted that he did not know the female was 16 years old at the time. He denied that he "stalked" the female, but stated that he merely spoke to her a few times in person and attempted to contact her once by telephone. He continued to express surprise at the stalking charge. On or about June 6, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, a felony, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to two years of probation, six months of psychological evaluation, and was required to pay court costs. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that he went to the home of an ex-girlfriend to collect a $500 debt she allegedly owed to him. He testified that he knocked on her door and got no response. As he left her residence, he saw that her automobile was unlocked. He opened the hood of the ex- girlfriend's vehicle and ripped out the spark plug cables. He asserted that he "didn't steal anything" because he threw the cables away and didn't keep them. On or about September 5, 2001, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, entered an order based on the Petitioner's stipulation, revoking his Class "D" Security Officer's License, based on the burglary charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Santana, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fernando Freire 5242 Millenia Boulevard, No. 304 Orlando, Florida 32839 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32808-1900
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Ivan Carrandi (Carrandi), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 17, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Carrandi. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Carrandi had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Carrandi and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Carrandi filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Carrandi denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Carrandi on January 1, 1985, at which time he freely admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1980 and 1981, while a student at Miami Dade Community College, Carrandi used marijuana approximately two or three times and cocaine approximately two or three times. He has not, however, otherwise used controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Carrandi's background, that Carrandi possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana and cocaine approximately 8 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Carrandi, born November 12, 1960, used marijuana two or three times and cocaine two or three times about 8 years ago when he was 20-21 years of age and a student at Miami Dade Community College. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Carrandi has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Carrandi has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Ivan Carrandi, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance, but not with those of petitioner. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Esteban Tabaoado (Tabaoado), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer periodically since September 11, 1984, without benefit of certification. On or about September 9, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Tabaoado. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated September 9, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Tabaoado had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Tabaoado and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Tabaoado filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Tabaoado denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to his application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether he currently possesses the requisite moral character for employment. 4/ Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Tabaoado on January 31, 1984, at which time he admitted to having used cocaine approximately eight times, the last time being in 1980, and to having used marijuana a few times, the last time being in June of 1983. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, Tabaoado was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and served satisfactorily until 1986. On December 14, 1986, evidence that Tabaoado had a substance abuse problem surfaced. On that date, Tabaoado telephoned his former supervisor, Lieutenant Lois Spears, a confidante, and advised her that he had been using drugs and did not think he could work that night. Lt. Spears advised Tabaoado not to report for work that evening, but to report the next morning to the administrative offices. The following day, Tabaoado met with Lt. Spears and Ervie Wright, the director of the Department's program services, which include employee counseling. At that time, Tabaoado conceded that he had been abusing cocaine, and Mr. Wright recommended that he seek assistance for his problem. On January 5, 1987, the County terminated Tabaoado's employment as a correctional officer for failure to maintain a drug-free life-style. On October 19, 1987, following Tabaoado's attendance at a drug rehabilitation program, the County re-employed him as a correctional officer. To date, Tabaoado has been so employed for approximately one and one-half years without incident, and his performance has been above satisfactory. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Recently, on January 20, 1989, Tabaoado married Olfuine Tabaoado, who has been a correctional officer with the County for almost three years. According to Ms. Tabaoado, she has never known him to use drugs during the one- year period that she has known him, and Tabaoado has proven to be a good father to her son from a previous marriage. While Tabaoado may have abstained from the use of drugs since his re- employment with the County, or even since January of 1987, the proof is not compelling in this regard. Rather, the proof demonstrates that Tabaoado's use of drugs, at least of cocaine, was frequent and protracted. Here, Tabaoado, born September 2, 1960, to the extent that he would admit it, used cocaine 8 times until 1980 and marijuana a "few times" until 1983. Thereafter, following his initial employment by the County as a correctional officer, he used cocaine to such an extent that by December 14, 1986, he was unable to perform his job and was in need of professional help to address his drug abuse. Such frequent and protracted use on his part does not evidence the requisite good moral character necessary for certification as a correctional officer. Here, Tabaoado chose not to testify at hearing, and there is no competent or persuasive proof to demonstrate that he successfully completed the drug rehabilitation program; when, if ever, he ceased using cocaine; whether he now has an appreciation of the impropriety of his conduct; or whether he can reasonably be expected to avoid such conduct in the future. Notably, on October 5, 1987, prior to his re-employment, Tabaoado underwent another pre-employment interview. At that time, Tabaoado told the interviewer, who had also conducted his first interview, that he had not used any drugs since his last interview on January 31, 1984. Such response was patently false, since he had abused cocaine at least as recently as December 1986. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is concluded that Tabaoado has failed to demonstrate that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Esteban Tabaoado, for certification as a correctional officer be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact 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 The Petitioner, James A. Detzel, age 40, was born in Miami, Florida, and he lived there until sometime during his junior high school years when he went into the United States Marine Corps. He subsequently earned and received a GED diploma from high school. At age 19 the Petitioner began to get into trouble with the law. He was arrested and convicted in Atlanta, Georgia, for armed robbery in 1960, and served a two year sentence. Between this occurrence and the year 1968 he was arrested and convicted three more times, for robbery, escape while serving the robbery sentence, and for possession of burglary tools. In 1968 the Petitioner was arrested for breaking and entering-grand larceny in Dade County, Florida, and sentenced to 15 years. He served nine and one-half years, and received a conditional release in 1976. A conditional release is the same as parole, but the Petitioner had previously violated parole and was not again eligible to receive parole. Thus, he received the conditional release. In October of 1981, the Petitioner's conditional release was terminated, after it had been satisfactorily completed. During the years, the Petitioner has also been arrested and convicted of breaking and entering-petit larceny, receiving stolen property, and larceny of an automobile. At the present time, however, he has paid his debts to society on all of these charges. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not yet had his civil rights restored, although he is apparently eligible to apply therefor. The Petitioner contends that he has been rehabilitated, and thus is now eligible to be licensed as a repossessor. He is married and has two children. He is buying a home in Tampa. He has been steadily employed since 1976, and is now working as repossessor in Tampa. His employers have found him to be reliable and trustworthy employee. The Petitioner has not been in any trouble with the law since 1968, and he has a satisfactory work record since his release from prison. The Petitioner has been honest and loving with his wife and family. He is a changed man now, his wife contends, and is a good family provider. The Petitioner's Parole Officer confirms that his life seems to have become stabilized now.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James A. Detzel for a Class E (Repossessor) License, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 5 day of February, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard S. Blunt, Esquire 112 South Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106 Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE JAMES A. DETZEL, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 81-2847S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s application for a real estate associates’ license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2009). Petitioner is a retired individual from Exxon. He worked as a research technologist for Exxon for 34 years. As such, he traveled extensively both in-state and out-of-state for the company. He retired in late 2008 and moved to Florida, shortly thereafter. He lives in Florida with his wife and two step-sons and worked for a brief time in a real estate sales office. During that experience he became interested in obtaining a real estate sales associates’ license and applied for licensure around March 2009. In 1998 or 1999, Petitioner lived in Louisiana where he resided with his daughter. On three separate occasions he either inappropriately touched his daughter in a sexual manner or she inappropriately touched him in a sexual manner. His daughter was about nine years old at the time of the three incidents. However, Petitioner’s actions were not reported to law enforcement until sometime in 2002. In October, 2002, Petitioner was charged with three counts of molestation of a juvenile and aggravated incest in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisana. On September 10, 2003, Petitioner plead guilty to three counts of molestation of a juvenile and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation with a variety of conditions. The evidence showed that supervised probation in Lousiana is similar to house arrest in Florida. During his supervision, Petitioner participated in and completed therapy with his daughter and ex-wife. According to Petitioner, he made amends to both his daughter and other members of her extended family. His daughter, who is now in college, regularly calls him on the phone, visits him in Florida and stays at his house. He testified that they have a close relationship and she has forgiven him. However, Petitioner’s daughter did not testify at the hearing. Indeed, Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay corroboration of his good character or his rehabilitation. Given this lack of evidence, the record is insufficient to establish that Petitioner now has good moral character or rehabilitated himself. Petitioner also testified that after his convictions, he returned to work at Exxon and frequently traveled with special travel permits from the Court and GPS tracking, both in- state and out-of-state, for the company. However, without more details from a credible source, these facts do not establish good moral character or rehabilitation. Petitioner completed his sentence in September 2008, and moved to Florida. He has not had any further criminal involvement with the law. Unfortunately, because of his record, he has had great difficulty finding employment. Petitioner worked as an assistant in a real estate office for about three months; his contact with the public was limited. His work in the real estate office precipitated Petitioner’s interest in becoming licensed. Petitioner testified that the agent he worked for was willing to hire him at his office. This agent did not testify at the hearing. Again, Petitioner’s testimony, by itself, is insufficient to establish good moral character. Additionally, there has been insufficient time between his release from supervision and the date of the hearing (approximately two years). Given these facts, Petitioner’s application should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated sufficient to show good moral character and denying Petitioner’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvah T. Wickboldt 1150 Fort Pickens Road, Unit F-1 Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner’s application for a real estate sales associate license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible, in relevant part, for licensing real estate sales associates in Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2010).1 Petitioner applied for a real estate sales associate license on a date not established in the record. The grounds stated in the Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner’s application for license are based on the criminal convictions stated in the application, the recent nature of the crimes, the pattern of the crimes, and the unpersuasive testimony of the applicant pertaining to his rehabilitation. The Notice of Intent to Deny concluded, in relevant part, that the criminal history showed a course of conduct in which Petitioner was incompetent, negligent, or dishonest in dealing with money within the meaning of Subsections 475.25(1)(o) and 475.181. Respondent concluded it would be a breach of its duty to the public to grant the application as provided in Section 455.201. For the reasons stated hereinafter, the testimony of Petitioner at the hearing did not provide a preponderance of evidence to overcome the grounds for denial. It is undisputed that Petitioner was convicted of two separate misdemeanors crimes for theft in Orange County, Florida, on April 21, 2004, and October 4, 2005. Petitioner served six months’ probation for the first offense and 30 days in jail for the second offense, as well as fines and community service related to both offenses. Petitioner did not present any witness, or other evidence, to support his claim of his ability to deal favorably in business matters or transactions. Petitioner did not present any evidence as to whether he was honest, truthful, trustworthy, had good character, or had a good reputation for fair dealing. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that he was competent. Petitioner presented no evidence to show he is qualified to make real estate transactions and conduct negotiations with safety to investors and to those with whom the applicant may undertake a relationship of trust and confidence. Petitioner’s testimony can be fairly summarized as a plea for a second chance. Petitioner presented no evidence of rehabilitation from his criminal past. His pleas of guilt to two different thefts are of paramount concern. These acts, coupled with a lack of any evidence of rehabilitation, fail to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of showing that he is qualified for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of October, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 20, 1977, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of failing ". . . to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over. . ." withheld taxes to the United States, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C., Section 7215. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for a period of one year, during which time he was to make restitution. Petitioner did in fact make restitution after his probation was extended. Petitioner was discharged from probation in the above case on or about February 27, 1979. Section 7512 of the Internal Revenue Code, under which Respondent was convicted, requires the collection of Federal Withholding Taxes from the wages of employees and the deposit of same into a separate bank account in trust for the United States. Violation of Section 7512 constitutes a misdemeanor. Petitioner owned and operated Wolfie's Restaurant in North Miami Beach for approximately 17 years. His testimony established that the business became indebted and he subsequently intentionally failed to pay some $46,000 in FICA and withholding taxes resulting in the above conviction. It should be noted that Petitioner filed the appropriate returns with the Internal Revenue Service and freely admitted his liability for taxes due and owing. The charges filed against him related only to his failure to pay said taxes and did not allege any attempt to conceal his liability. Petitioner was also charged with destruction of personal property in 1978, a misdemeanor. Petitioner pled guilty, adjudication was withheld, and he was required to pay costs of the action. This charge was not disclosed on Petitioner's application. Petitioner did not, however, intentionally withhold this information, but understood the application to require such information only where he had been formally arrested. Petitioner is currently employed at the Tiffany Hotel in Miami Beach. Prior to that, he operated the Lovin Oven Bakery in Miami. Petitioner presented two character witnesses who testified as to their personal business dealings with the Petitioner as well as Petitioner's general reputation in the business community. Their testimony established that Petitioner is regarded as honest and truthful.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1982.
