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
Findings Of Fact Fuller Warren Crews was employed until 1959 as a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1959, he was permitted to resign rather than face disciplinary charges. In 1959, Crews pled guilty in Jacksonville to damage to telephone equipment, a misdemeanor. Crews was sentenced to six months in the county jail. In 1960, Crews was found guilty of possession of tools used in committing crimes and pled guilty to simple larceny in Tifton County, Georgia. Be was sentenced to three to five years in prison in Georgia. Crews was fully pardoned for the offense of possession of tools used in committing crimes on October 6, 1975. Approximately eight to ten years ago, Crews became active within tie Nassau County Sheriff's posse helping to reorganize those police auxiliary groups. He was very dedicated and did a fine job, eventually becoming Captain of the posse. Crews applied for a position as Deputy Sheriff in Nassau County in 1976. He was interviewed by the Sheriff, who he advised of his criminal record. The Sheriff desired to hire Crews and contacted the Police Standards and Training Commission. In January, 1976, the Sheriff's Department provided the PSTC with various data on Crews. This data constituted the application for certification by the Commission, which does not have an application form. This application led to the processing of Crews' certification over the next two years. The procedures of the Department delegated to individual law enforcement agencies the task of conducting background investigations. Basic background data on Crews' convictions and former employment was provided the PSTC prior to Crews' certification on February 3, 1978 (Transcript, pages 178 and 179). In the course of processing his application, Crews appeared informally before the Commission concerning his certification on August 20, 1976. At that time questions were asked of Crews by the Commission regarding his dismissal from the Jacksonville Police Department. Crews responded that he had been discharged because of charges involving unlawful damage to private property (Transcript, pages 129, 165 and 166). There was no indication that Crews failed in any way to disclose his past record either in his application or in his statements to the Commission. Crews was denied certification because of the Commission's interpretation of Chapter 112.011, Florida Statutes, to Crews' pardon and the Federal Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 922(h) (Exhibit #2). Crews' fingerprints were taken by the Sheriff's Department and forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) but not to the PSTC. The FDLE forwarded Crews' fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI sent one fingerprint card and Crews' RAP sheet back to the FDLE but not to the PSTC, and the FDLE sent the fingerprint card and RAP sheet to the Sheriff's Department. Under the PSTC's standard procedures, the Sheriff's Department sent this data to the Commission when Crews was hired, the day after his certification. The Sheriff's Department had knowledge of Crews criminal convictions and dismissal from the Jacksonville Police Department from the RAP sheet and Crews' statements to the Sheriff. On February 3, 1978, the Commission certified Crews. There was a discussion of Crews' background by the Commission, particularly his pardon, after which Crews was certified. His certification resulted from the Commission's interpretation of the law (Transcript, pages 166, 167, 182, 184, 105 and 186. See also attached minutes, Exhibit #4 and letter from Smith to Long). According to a member of the Commission at that time, Crews' certification was not a clerical error but resulted from the Commission staff's failure to follow up on data which it possessed (Transcript, pages 189 and 190) Many co-workers, the Sheriff by whom Crews is employed, neighbors and others testified regarding Crews' reputation in the community and their personal assessments of Crews' character. He is considered to be truthful, trustworthy, honest and hardworking. He has worked as a deputy sheriff since 1978 and has a reputation as a fine professional law enforcement officer respected by his co- workers and associates, many of whom testified in his behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Police Standards and Training Commission toe no action to revoke the certification of Fuller Warren Crews because it lacks authority to consider any grounds for revocation which preexisted its initial final action of certification, and because the record reflects that Fuller Warren Crews has maintained good moral character. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Corrigan, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Sheppard, Esquire 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 80-921 FULLER WARREN CREWS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact From December 10, 1982, until the present, the Respondent Knoxon Motel, located at 7411 Northeast Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a motel business and holds license no. 23-08193H. The Knoxon Motel is located in an area of Miami which is known to be a place where prostitution is open and widespread. This condition has existed for approximately 12 to 13 years. Of the numerous motels and apartments in the area, the Knoxon has presented one of the biggest problems for law enforcement officers in their attempts to stop prostitution activities along Biscayne Boulevard. It is a common sight to see prostitutes flagging customers from the street and walking back and forth in front of the Knoxon waiting for prospective customers to drive by. The owner of another motel across the street from the Knoxon, Aaron Manes, has lost customers as a result of prostitutes following them into his motel in search of business. The problem is so serious that a unit of Mane's motel cannot be rented because of the noise that comes from the Knoxon. Manes has called the police over the past year at least once a day with complaints regarding prostitutes around the Knoxon, but so far has been unable to permanently solve the problem. The management of the Knoxon has been warned by police officers regarding prostitution activities at the Knoxon following the arrest of various females in and around the premises. The prostitutes who frequent the area around the Knoxon typically do not rent rooms themselves but instead use a go- between such as a pimp to secure a place to meet customers. Prostitutes have been observed standing in doorways and in front of open doors at the Knoxon partially and totally nude. This activity has been visible from the street. The owners of the Knoxon acknowledge that prostitution is a serious problem in the area but denied that their problems were any worse than other motels in the area. Management of the Knoxon considered installing surveillance equipment but decided against it due to a $5,000-$6,000 cost. Given the undisputed prostitute problem in the area, what has been openly observed at the Knoxon, and what had been told to management by police officers, the Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that a serious prostitution problem existed at the motel. Despite such knowledge, specific and substantial steps were not undertaken to solve the problem. The south side of the Knoxon, which is not visible from the manager's office but is the focal point of the building from the street, has been openly utilized by prostitutes without any apparent fear of detection by the Knoxon's management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's hotel license no. 23-01893H be suspended for one year subject to the condition that upon the Division of Hotels and Restaurants' being assured that adequate steps have been taken to prevent the use of the premises of the Knoxon for the purpose of prostitution, the suspension would be lifted. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-8675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black male. Respondent is a grocery supply company that operates several large warehouses. It supplies groceries to military commissaries. On November 26, 2002, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a selector/stock picker. At some point, Petitioner became a stockchecker/loader. As such, Petitioner’s duties included gathering merchandise from Respondent’s warehouses, loading pallets and loading trucks. Petitioner’s primary work area was the front docks in the main warehouse; his direct supervisor was David Malloy. The main warehouse had two break rooms. Petitioner’s scheduled start time was 6:30 a.m. During the work day, Petitioner had scheduled breaks in the morning and afternoon. Each break was for 10 minutes. No breaks were scheduled between 6:00 a.m.-6:30 a.m. Additionally, Petitioner had a scheduled lunch period. Employees were notified of a break or lunch period through the PA system. There was no evidence that Mr. Malloy permitted unscheduled breaks. Prior to the end of January, 2008, GSC discovered that Hormel dinners and Capri Sun products were disappearing from the warehouse. Management and supervisors strongly suspected that these products were being stolen by employees. At some point, GSC supervisors found a hidden stash of food products in the break room of Building 11, one of Respondent’s warehouses also known as the repack area. This warehouse was located about 3-4 minutes’ walk away from the front loading docks in the main warehouse. In an effort to discover who had hidden the products, GSC supervisors were periodically checking the break room of Building 11. Between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., on January 28, 2008, Kim Howell, a warehouse supervisor, entered the break room of Building 11 and saw Petitioner and Anthony Smith, also a loader, standing at a counter in the break room. Petitioner was drinking coffee and Mr. Smith was eating one of the Hormel products from the hidden stash. Ms. Howell asked what the two men were doing. Petitioner stated that he had come to Building 11 to get some coffee. He did not state that he had come to the warehouse to select any products. Mr. Smith did not explain his presence in Building 11 because he was eating. When Ms. Howell asked about the food he was eating, Mr. Smith admitted that the food was not his and that he did not know who it belonged to. Eventually, Ms. Howell instructed both men to “get back to work.” Both men returned to the front docks in the main warehouse. Eventually, Mr. Smith was sent home with instructions to return at 10:00 a.m. the next day. Petitioner remained at work. Ms. Howell retrieved the Hormel box from the trash and immediately reported the incident to her supervisor, Harry Madden. The product code on the Hormel box matched the product code of the hidden Hormel meals. Later, Ms. Howell told Petitioner the incident was being investigated. She indicated that he would be interviewed about the incident by Mr. Madden and that he should tell the truth. On January 29, 2008, Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Madden. Ms. Howell was present. During the interview, Petitioner stated that he had gone to Building 11 to get a cup of coffee and that he saw Mr. Smith eating a Hormel meal in the break room when Ms. Howell entered the room. Mr. Madden and Ms. Howell thought Petitioner was more intent on asserting that GSC could not prove that Mr. Smith had stolen the product he was eating because the Hormel product could have been purchased anywhere in the Pensacola area. Mr. Madden asked Petitioner several times if he knew where Mr. Smith had gotten the Hormel product. Petitioner stated that he didn’t know because he saw the same thing that Ms. Howell saw, i.e., Mr. Smith eating the food. Mr. Madden felt Petitioner was being uncooperative based on the fact that he was in the break room with Mr. Smith and Petitioner’s attitude during the meeting. There was no evidence to show that Mr. Madden’s perception was unreasonable or a pretext for discrimination. Mr. Madden forwarded the issue of discipline to the Human Resources department, in part due to the perceived lack of cooperation by Respondent and, in part, due to the fact that Respondent was in a break room taking a break when it was not break time. The Human Resources department reviewed Petitioner’s work and discipline history. The records showed that Mr. Lindsey had been repeatedly warned and disciplined for tardiness. As testified to by Mr. Lindsey’s supervisor, Dave Malloy, the disciplinary write-ups included only those instances which warranted disciplinary action during a rolling six-month period. Because of his repeated tardiness, Petitioner had received a final warning. The records also showed that Mr. Lindsey had been disciplined for failure to adequately perform the duties of his position. Based on Petitioner’s disciplinary history and final warning, his presence in the break room during non-break hours, and his perceived refusal to cooperate during the company’s investigation of Mr. Smith’s activities, Mr. Lindsey was terminated on January 29, 2008. There was no evidence that Respondent’s reason for termination was unreasonable or a pretext to cover discrimination. Eventually, Mr. Smith admitted to the theft and was terminated for theft. Mr. Smith did not implicate Petitioner in the theft. Petitioner identified Kim Howell as the only non- minority employee who had allegedly been treated differently than him. He based his assertion on the fact that Ms. Howell was not terminated as he was over the events of January 28, 2008. However, Ms. Howell is clearly not similarly situated to Petitioner. She was authorized to be in Building 11 and was performing her investigative duties. She also was not on an unscheduled break. There was no evidence presented regarding Ms. Howell’s disciplinary history. In comparison, Petitioner was primarily terminated for being on an unscheduled break and for his past disciplinary history. Even though incorrect, Mr. Madden, based on the circumstances, reasonably believed that Petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2009, 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 24th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Lindsey 5908 Princeton Drive Pensacola, Florida 32526 Michael S. Mitchell, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3710 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the administration of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, including the licensure of Class "D" Security Officers. Petitioner applied for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer. Pending the processing of that application, Petitioner became employed as a security guard for approximately five months. By letter dated February 21, 1996, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that his application for a Class "D" license was, subject to his due process rights, going to be denied based on his conviction of battery in St. Lucie County in September 1993. Respondent asserted that the conviction was of a crime directly related to the business for which the license is sought within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent also asserted that the facts relating to that conviction establish that Petitioner had committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of himself or another within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On September 14, 1993, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor count of battery. The victim of the battery was Thomas Coburn. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 days in the county jail, one year probation, and 50 hours of community service. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thomas Coburn was employed by the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida, as a city code enforcement officer. The code enforcement division is administered by the City of Port St. Lucie Police Department. Mr. Coburn was not a sworn law enforcement officer. On Sunday, May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn was acting in his official capacity as a city code enforcement officer. He was wearing a badge, name plate, and collar pins with the initials P.S.L. He was in an official uniform that had patches with the inscription "Port St. Lucie, Fla. Police." He was driving a marked vehicle that reflected he was with the city code enforcement department. Shortly after noon on May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn went to the personal residence of the Petitioner for the purpose of serving upon Petitioner a notice to appear pertaining to several alleged code violations. Petitioner was home with his wife, his teenage stepson, and his five year old son. When Mr. Coburn arrived, Petitioner was about to begin a barbecue. When the stepson came to the door in response to Mr. Coburn knock on the door, Mr. Coburn asked to speak to Petitioner. The teenage stepson went inside to get the Petitioner. Mr. Coburn did not see the stepson or another member of Petitioner's family after the Petitioner came to the door. When Petitioner came to the door, Mr. Coburn identified himself as a code enforcement officer and told Petitioner he was there to deliver the notice to appear. Mr. Coburn's vehicle was parked on the street so that Petitioner could see the markings on the vehicle. Petitioner became irate and shouted profanities at Mr. Coburn. Petitioner told Mr. Coburn that he could not serve official papers on a Sunday and ordered him off his property. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. Petitioner testified that Mr. Coburn bumped him in the chest as the two of them argued. Mr. Coburn testified that he backed away from Petitioner and began to leave the premises. The more credible version of the events is that given by Mr. Coburn. Consequently, it is found that there was no physical contact initiated by Mr. Coburn. As he was backing away and preparing to leave the premises, Mr. Coburn placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill that was in the area where the two men were standing. After he placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill, Mr. Coburn turned to walk away. Petitioner then kicked Mr. Coburn in the buttocks. It was Petitioner's act of kicking Mr. Coburn that resulted in his subsequent arrest and conviction. There was no one else in the area around Petitioner's front door at the time of this incident. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner was acting in defense of himself or of others when he kicked Mr. Coburn. Petitioner has not been convicted of any other crime. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was an approved process server within the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. Petitioner worked as a security guard for the five months preceding the denial of his application. There were no incidents of violence during that five month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order deny Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward B. Galante, Esquire 789 South Federal Highway, No. 103 Stuart, Florida 34994 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue presented herein, summarily stated, is whether or not the Respondent has allowed, fostered, condoned and/or negligently overlooked the trafficking in illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about its licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to curtail or prevent the illegal trafficking of illegal narcotics at its licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Del Sol Enterprises, Inc., is a corporate entity which holds alcoholic beverage license number 39-2182, series 2-COP, and does business as THE PARADISE INN, located at 3513 North 22 Street, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. John Gatto, Jr. is the President and sole corporate stockholder of Del Sol Enterprises, Inc., the Respondent corporation. On several dates during the period July 26 through approximately August 26, 1983, Officer Keith Hamilton of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Petitioner herein) and Tampa Police Department Officers, Chester L. Copeland, Corporal Vincent Rodriguez and Officer Frank L. Swope, conducted several surveillance and/or investigations of the licensed premises. Specifically, on July 26, 1983, Officer Keith Hamilton, a beverage officer employed by the Petitioner since approximately December, 1980, who is trained in the enforcement of beverage and tobacco laws, entered the licensed premises for the purpose of ensuring that the beverage and tobacco laws were being enforced. Officer Hamilton observed two black males seated in the southeast corner of the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Officer Hamilton observed the fact that the cigarette being smoked by the two black male patrons was not cylindrical but was, rather, irregular in shape. Officer Hamilton also noted the smell of the burning substance and the manner in which it was inhaled. At no time did any employee of Respondent make an effort to stop the above- referred behavior by the two black male patrons which was observed by Officer Hamilton. The following day, July 27, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises. He engaged the off-duty barmaid, Vickie Jean Washington, in conversation. During the conversation, barmaid Washington was approached by an unknown black female who inquired if she (Washington) possessed any marijuana for sale. Officer Hamilton thereafter asked Washington if she could obtain some marijuana for him, giving her ten dollars in U.S. currency for the purchase of same. Washington exited the premises and, upon returning, informed Officer Hamilton that there was no marijuana worth purchasing. Later that evening, Washington asked Officer Hamilton if he desired some cocaine. Officer Hamilton gave Washington twenty dollars in U.S. currency and Washington produced two foil packs containing a substance later analyzed and identified by the FDLE crime laboratory as cocaine. The cocaine purchased by Officer Hamilton was maintained in his custody and control until it was turned over to beverage officer John T. Allen. Officer Allen maintained custody of the substance until it was placed into the evidence vault at the FDLE crime laboratory in Tampa, Florida. Officer Allen is responsible for the transportation of all evidence from the Petitioner to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. During the transportation of evidence in his custody, Officer Allen ensures that all evidence in his custody is properly marked and sealed and FDLE crime laboratory technicians who are responsible for logging and transferring submissions to analysts for analysis, ensure that all submissions received follow the FDLE crime laboratory policies and procedures for the receipt of submissions for analysis. Additionally, FDLE chemists who receive submissions for analysis will not perform an analysis upon a submission which is in any manner a departure from the FDLE crime lab's policies and procedures. (Testimony of FDLE crime laboratory technicians Myrtis Smith and Priscilla Miller, and FDLE crime lab analyst Anthony Ziberna) On July 28, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Hamilton again met with off-duty barmaid Washington and observed Washington ingest the contents of two foil packages while standing at the bar (in the licensed premises) in open view. Officer Hamilton observed barmaid Washington break the substance of the foil packs upon the bar into small grains, lick the empty foil pack, and discard it on the floor. She proceeded to ingest the powder into her nose in a snorting manner. While on the premises that date, Officer Hamilton also purchased a small clear packet containing suspected marijuana from off-duty barmaid Washington. Officer Hamilton purchased the packet, which later was identified as marijuana by the FDLE crime laboratory, for ten dollars in U.S. currency. During the negotiation for the purchase of the marijuana, Officer Hamilton inquired of Washington if she was afraid to "do" the cocaine by the door and she responded that it was "okay." During the above transactions with off-duty barmaid Washington and her ingestion of the suspected cocaine, no one in the position of authority on the licensed premises attempted to stop either activity. After exiting the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton maintained complete custody and control of the suspected marijuana until such time as he turned it over to Officer Allen who properly marked the substance, maintained complete custody and control of it until it was turned over to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. On July 29, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton spoke with a black female who related that she was one of the managers of the licensed premises. While engaged in conversation with this black female, Officer Hamilton observed another black male snorting a "line" of suspected cocaine on the bar. Upon pointing this out to the female manager, no action was taken on her part to stop said activity. While on the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton was also approached by a black male who sold him a foil pack containing a substance, later identified as cocaine upon analysis by the FDLE crime laboratory, in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. The substance was properly maintained under the custody and control of either Officers Hamilton, Allen, or analysts at the FDLE crime laboratory. On August 1, 1983, Officer Hamilton was again in the licensed premises. While there, Officer Hamilton observed several patrons smoking marijuana in the licensed premises. Hamilton inquired of the manager whether or not he had some marijuana and was advised that no one had any on this occasion. Officer Hamilton then departed the licensed premises. On August 2, 1983, Officer Hamilton again was on the licensed premises. While on the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton observed several patrons in the bar either smoking suspected marijuana or "doing" cocaine on the bar counter. On or about August 3, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises and observed several persons engaged in the sale and use of suspected marijuana without any attempt to control such activity on Respondent's part. On or about August 5, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and observed approximately five or more transactions involving suspected marijuana and/or cocaine buys. While on the premises, Officer Hamilton purchased a package of suspected marijuana from a black male in exchange for five dollars in U.S. currency. Officer Hamilton left the bar with the suspected marijuana and maintained custody and control thereof until it was received by Officer Allen for marking and identification. Officer Allen thereafter proceeded to the FDLE crime lab where he submitted the substance for analysis. On August 15, 1983, Officer Hamilton again visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While there, he observed barmaid Washington and several patrons smoking what he suspected to be marijuana. While that activity was ongoing, no one on Respondent's behalf attempted to stop such activity. On August 17, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department, Street Anti-Crime Section, entered the licensed premises as part of the same undercover operation. While there, Officer Copeland was approached by an unknown black male who asked Copeland if he desired to buy some cocaine. At this time, Officer Copeland purchased a foil packet of cocaine for the price of five dollars in U.S. currency. While on the licensed premises, Officer Copeland also observed the same individual make several drug sales in an open and unobstructed manner. Officer Copeland also observed several patrons in the bar smoking what he believed to be marijuana cigarettes. Officer Copeland has received training and is experienced in the detection and identification of controlled substances and their usage. Barmaid Washington, who was on the premises at the time, made no attempt to stop the above-referred activity observed by Officer Copeland. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Officer Copeland returned to the Tampa Police Department and administered a valtox chemical test upon the suspected cocaine purchased while at the licensed premises and the results thereof were positive for the presence of the controlled substance cocaine. Officer Hamilton also entered the licensed premises on August 23, 24 and 25, 1983. While on the premises on August 23, 1983, Officer Hamilton observed on-duty barmaid Washington smoke marijuana and snort what he suspected to be cocaine from the top of the east bar. While there, Hamilton approached an unidentified black male patron and asked if he could purchase some cocaine. This inquiry resulted in a sale of suspected cocaine in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. Upon leaving the premises, Officer Hamilton maintained custody and control of the suspected cocaine until it was turned over to Officer Tim Allen. Officer Allen thereafter maintained control of the suspected cocaine until it was submitted to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. While on the premises on August 24, 1983, Officer Hamilton again observed off-duty barmaid Washington snort a powdery substance suspected to be cocaine. This activity by Washington as in the presence of a patron and was done on the bar corner in the licensed premises. At no time did anyone on Respondent's behalf attempt to stop said activity. While on the licensed premises on August 25, Officer Hamilton was approached by a black male from whom Officer Hamilton had purchased suspected cocaine on a prior occasion. Pursuant to an inquiry by that patron, Officer Hamilton proceeded to purchase a quantity of suspected cocaine in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. Upon exiting the premises, Officer Hamilton proceeded to the Tampa Police Department where he delivered the suspected cocaine to Officer Tim Allen. After marking and receiving the suspected cocaine from Hamilton, Officer Hamilton submitted it to the FDLE crime lab for analysis. On August 23, 1983, Officer Copeland again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While there, he purchased a baggie of suspected marijuana from a black female in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. While there, Officer Copeland observed on-duty barmaid Washington snort a white powdery substance suspected to be cocaine in addition to smoking what he recognized as a marijuana cigarette. Upon leaving the premises, Officer Copeland returned to the Tampa Police Department where he ran a valtox chemical test on the suspected marijuana which results were positive for the controlled substance marijuana. The licensed premises is situated in an area of Tampa whereby drugs and other drug-related problems are commonplace. Narcotics and other controlled substances are readily purchased in and around the immediate area where the licensed premises is situated. The FDLE crime laboratory has uniform policies and procedures respecting the acceptance of substances submitted for analysis. Prior to acceptance by the FDLE crime lab, submissions must be properly marked, identified, and sealed. Thereafter, the submission from the agency involved is placed into an evidence locker or vault where it is kept under lock until such time as it is removed for analysis by a lab chemist. Chemists for the FDLE crime lab will not conduct a chemical analysis on a suspected substance where there is any evidence of tampering with the submission or if the submission is not sealed upon receipt by the chemist. Finally, there was no evidence introduced herein that any of the submissions received (6) were in any manner tampered with prior to analysis by the chemists from the FDLE crime laboratory (Testimony of chemist Anthony Ziberna) Of six (6) submissions submitted by the Petitioner to the FDLE crime lab, only those submissions dated August 26 and August 2, 1983 proved not to be controlled substances under the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Jerry Cumbie, a self-employed contractor, has done substantial remodeling work on behalf of the Respondent corporation for many years. On approximately August 5, 2/ Mr. Cumbie started remodeling and other construction of the licensed premises in an effort to prohibit patrons from using the licensed premises for hiding controlled substances. Among the things Mr. Cumbie did was close off a section of the dance area (the north side of the bar) to prevent patrons from going into that area to smoke marijuana; the tying down of the ceiling tiles and erection of new paneling to keep patrons from hiding drugs behind loose walls. Harold Gillespie, the manager of the Paradise Inn, has been employed by the Respondent corporation for approximately 12 years. Mr. Gillespie is approximately five feet five inches tall and weighs approximately 290 pounds. He is the only black male manager at the Paradise Inn during the months June and July of 1983. Mr. Gillespie acknowledged that drugs were a problem in the area and that that problem overflows into the licensed premises. In an effort to curb that overflow, Messrs. Gillespie and Gatto met with representatives of the Tampa Police Department Vice Squad during June or July of 1983 and advised the vice employees of their problems with drugs in the area. Mr. Gillespie recalled that he spoke with a Sergeant Kester and a Captain Stallings of the Tampa Police Department. Mr. Gillespie recalled having apprehended numerous patrons in the licensed premises who were using illegal drugs on the premises. Mr. Gillespie ejects any patron from the licensed premises that refuses to stop the illegal use of controlled substances while on the premises. He has also taken other steps including turning off water in the lavatories to make it difficult for drug users to "setup" in order to conveniently use the drugs. Mr. Gillespie also sought the assistance of police officers from the local precinct and recalls speaking to an Officer Keys and others who work out of the local precinct in the area of the licensed premises. Mr. Gillespie fired Vickie Washington when she was arrested for drugs. Finally, Mr. Gillespie instructed employees to patrol the restrooms and other vacant areas to attempt to curtail patrons from the use of illegal or prohibited drugs in the licensed premises. John Gatto, Jr., the president and owner of the respondent corporate entity since 1965, has owned and operated as many as six (6) liquor establishments at one time. Presently, the Respondent operates four bars and has sold two within the last six months. Del Sol Enterprises has experienced one problem with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco prior to the subject incident. That problem occurred approximately 8 years ago when a janitor sold a bottle of liquor before opening hours. Mr. Gatto also recalls contacting Sergeant Jones of the Tampa Vice Squad and was assured that the vice squad would help to the extent practicable with the drug related problems. Mr. Gatto spent approximately $4,000 for remodeling the licensed premises in an effort to shut it off from patrons in areas which could not be easily supervised. Mr. Gatto acknowledges the existence of the drug problems in the licensed premises and in the area and concedes that more employees would possibly alleviate part of the problem. However, he counters that the establishment was losing money and that he did the best that he could do with the available help under the circumstances. Mr. Gatto employed Vickie Washington on approximately July 17, 1983. Manager Gillespie inquired of her background and got reports that she was "pretty clean." Mr. Gatto was unaware that Vickie Washington used drugs while on the licensed premises. Mr. Gatto recalled having found drugs in the cocktail tables; loose paneling areas of the licensed premises; and in pockets in the billiard tables. Mr. Gatto frequented the Paradise Inn approximately twice per month to check the manner in which the establishment was operating. He had no knowledge of the number of drug transactions that were occurring in the licensed premises and does not condone or otherwise foster the use of drugs in the licensed premises. Finally, Mr. Gatto tied the ceiling tiles down with wire and installed a booth in the entrance area to check who went in and out of the bar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39- 2182, series 2-COP, doing business as the Paradise Inn, be suspended for a period of 6 months from the date of the final order entered herein. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 30th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether the registration of the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber, license #0034988 should be revoked or suspended, or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact An administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, on September 29, 1978, seeking to revoke or suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent Haber. The administrative complaint charged that the licensee was presently confined in a state prison. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. A stipulation was entered by Barry A. Cohen, Esquire, the attorney for Respondent, confirming that Respondent Haber was and had been continuously confined in the Broward Correctional Institution since August 16, 1977. Said stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to the hearing a letter was received by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, advising the Petitioner that Respondent did not intend to proceed to hearing and requesting Petitioner to close the matter. The Division of Administrative Hearings was not so notified. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Petitioner presented the aforesaid stipulation and aforesaid letter and a witness at the hearing. The witness, Martha Iglesias, Inmate Records Supervisor for the Broward Correctional Institution, testified that Respondent Haber was an inmate of said institution, having been found guilty by a jury of First Degree Murder in Case #75-518 in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary for a period of her natural life.
Recommendation Revoke the non-active salesman license held by the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber. DONE and ORDERED this 18TH day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barry A. Cohen, Esquire 100 Twiggs Street, Suite 4000 Tampa, Florida 33602 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled an exemption from disqualification under the provisions of Sections 400.512(1) and 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact C. A. N. (Petitioner) was arrested on December 17, 1985, for shoplifting and was convicted of grand larceny. The Petitioner was arrested on February 23, 1989, for larceny and was convicted of grand larceny. The Petitioner was arrested on August 11, 1992, for passing a forged instrument and was convicted. The Petitioner was arrested on November 23, 1993, for passing a forged instrument and was convicted. The Petitioner was arrested on May 11, 1994, for grand larceny and was convicted. The Petitioner was arrested on October 26, 1994, and was convicted of forgery, grand larceny and welfare fraud. Based on a number of offenses and an apparent violation of an probationary sentence, the Petitioner was sentenced on July 28, 1994, to serve four years and six months in prison. Although the prison sentence does not appear to have run its course, the Petitioner has been released from incarceration. The actual date of her release was not established at the hearing. The Respondent suggests that the short duration of her present rehabilitation is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is of good moral character and fails to support the award of an exemption from disqualification. The Respondent asserts that given the Petitioner's regular pattern of arrests for property-related crimes, her chosen profession of nursing presents a continuing opportunity for the theft of patient property. There is no evidence that the Petitioner's prior criminal activity was directed towards individual victims. Based on the testimony of the Petitioner and the supporting witnesses, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner poses no serious danger if she becomes exempt from disqualification. There is no evidence of any inappropriate activity of any kind since her release from incarceration. At the hearing, the Petitioner spoke articulately of her criminal history and the reasons she believes that she will not encounter further criminal entanglement. She talked about the differences between her previous life and the life she now leads. During the period of her criminal activity, the Petitioner was married to an abusive spouse. Since her release, she has completed a domestic violence support group program. She is obtaining a dissolution of the marriage. None of the Petitioner's convictions are directly drug- related. Her convictions are all related to theft of funds, either by improper use of credit cards, improper receipt of public assistance funds, or retail shoplifting. According to her uncontroverted testimony, the major reason for her criminal activity was related to drug use by the Petitioner and by her spouse. Funds were illegally obtained, either to directly purchase drugs or to purchase food for her children when their regular food money was used to buy drugs. Since her release from incarceration, she has completed an early intervention training program related to drug dependency. There is no evidence that the Petitioner has used drugs since her incarceration. The Petitioner is currently attending business school, and is making acceptable progress, but desires to become employed in the nursing field, for which she is trained. The Petitioner appears to have substantial support from family and friends. At the hearing, her daughter, her prison counselor, her career counselor, and a friend from her church all spoke well of her behavior and strongly believe that she has made a permanent change in her life. Her career counselor predicted that the Petitioner could successfully enter the nursing field.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administrative enter a Final Order granting the Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED:WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1997. Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 C. A. N., Pro Se 2931 Ivanhoe Way South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent (ACG) is a provider of contract security guard services. Its clients include FedEx and other shipping companies. A critical responsibility of the ACG Security Guards stationed at these shipping companies' sites is "verifying all seal numbers & trailer numbers, against [the] manifest" in order "to make sure the correct shipment goes out with the correct trailer." When a trailer leaves the site with the wrong shipment (which ACG refers to as a "mispull"), ACG is obligated to compensate the client for monetary damages the client suffers as a result of the "mispull." Site Supervisors are responsible for the performance of the Security Guards working at their site. It is ACG policy, where there are repeated incidents of Security Guard nonfeasance at a site, to take disciplinary action against the Site Supervisor. Site Supervisors, in addition to having supervisory obligations, also must perform security guard functions at their assigned sites. Petitioner is a black Haitian. He was employed by ACG as a Site Supervisor from August 13, 2006, until December 2009. He supervised two sites during his employment with ACG: the FedEx Freight site in Medley, Florida (until September 3, 2008), and the FedEx National site in Orlando, Florida (thereafter). Petitioner worked under the supervision of three successive Operations Managers: Sheila Doyle (who was fired in October 2008), then Clarence Dorm, and finally Alex Potempa. Mr. Potempa, who was Petitioner's supervisor at the time Petitioner left ACG's employ, has supervisory authority over Site Supervisors and Security Guards in ten east coast states, including Florida. In addition to the FedEx Freight site in Medley and the FedEx National site in Orlando, there are two other sites in the central and southeast part of the state at which ACG is providing contract security guard services (under Mr. Potempa's supervision) to shipping company clients: the SouthEast Freight site in West Palm Beach, and the FedEx National site in Delray Beach. As of April 5, 2010, working at these four sites was a total of 15 ACG employees, of which all but one were black. Six of the black employees were of Haitian national origin, and one of these six employees was a Site Supervisor (of the SouthEast Freight site). Over approximately a three-month period from October 2009, to December 2009, there were four separate incidents where a Security Guard under Petitioner's supervision at the FedEx National site was, in the opinion of Mr. Potempa, guilty of dereliction of duty. These incidents were: a "mispull" in late October; another "mispull" in late December; a Security Guard not being at his post, in late December, when a FedEx representative sought to access the site; and a Security Guard being involved, in late December, in an "at fault" accident while riding on an ACG golf cart on the site. In accordance with the ACG policy described in Finding of Fact 3, Petitioner was removed from his Site Supervisor position because of these incidents. This disciplinary action was recommended by Mr. Potempa and approved by ACG's Regional Vice President, Jeff Darley. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to remain with ACG in a non-supervisory, Security Guard position, but he declined the offer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding American Citadel Guard not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of December, 2010.
