The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, the second issue for consideration is what penalty should be imposed for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 194525 by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent was employed by the FHP. For an unspecified time prior to July 11, 2011, Respondent was involved in a relationship with a woman named Tamarah Rasmussen. For some period, she shared his home with him. However, in the weeks or months preceding July 11, 2011, the couple’s relationship had deteriorated, and Respondent wanted it to end. He had, however, allowed her to remain in the home “as a friend.” On July 10, 2011, the couple had a fight, and Respondent left the house. On July 11, 2011, Respondent returned to the home after his work shift, and told Ms. Rasmussen that he wanted their relationship to end. Respondent told her he wanted to sleep in a separate bed, and took the mattress pad off of a bed in a bedroom downstairs and put it on a separate bed upstairs. Ms. Rasmussen reacted by taking the mattress pad off of the second bed and throwing it out the window. Respondent retrieved the mattress pad. Ms. Rasmussen then poured a container of water on the bed where Respondent intended to sleep. Respondent turned on the video function on his cellular phone and asked Ms. Rasmussen about her actions. She responded by telling him he was a fool and an idiot, and that he was crazy. In what can be gleaned from the tape, Respondent asked her to take her things and leave. Instead, Ms. Rasmussen approached Respondent trying to get his phone as he started to go upstairs, and began hitting him. He can be heard on the cell phone recording repeatedly asking her to stop. Ms. Rasmussen repeatedly answered “no,” and “this was good enough for you last night,” and the sound of her striking Respondent can be heard clearly. This altercation occurred as Respondent attempted to retreat up the stairs. At one point, Respondent exclaimed that Ms. Rasmussen had hit him in the face, and Ms. Rasmussen responds, “yeah, I did.” Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen end up in what appears to be a walk-in closet upstairs. At that point, Respondent told Ms. Rasmussen that she was “going down,” and that he would “arrest her myself.” Respondent appeared to be out of breath. Ms. Rasmussen responded by telling him repeatedly that she was not under arrest and he was not arresting her for anything. She told him several times to stop, and to “get off of her,” stating that she could not breathe. Eventually, she told him that he had won, and asked him to help her up. Ms. Rasmussen testified that Respondent dragged her up the stairs, hitting her head on the stairwell on the way up. She testified further that he slammed her against the wall, handcuffed her behind her back, and was sitting on top of her while he did so, and while she pleaded with him to stop. According to her, Respondent hit her several times during the time they were in the closet, and then dragged her back down the stairs by the chain on the handcuffs. She also stated that Respondent threatened to kill her, saying that if he did so he could dispose of her body in the pond on the property and no one would know unless they drained the pond. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that Ms. Rasmussen began hitting him around the head and neck, and he was retreating up the stairs in an effort to get away from her, telling her repeatedly to stop. He testified that once they reached the closet, he told her he was arresting her and placed her hands behind her back in order to handcuff her. When she told him he was not arresting her for anything, he warned her not to “make me Taze you,” and finished placing the handcuffs on her wrists, behind her back. Respondent denied sitting on Ms. Rasmussen, saying that he knelt on one knee with one foot flat on the floor, and with Ms. Rasmussen secured between his legs, as he learned in law enforcement training. While Ms. Rasmussen testified that he dragged her down the stairs of the house and then threw her down the outside steps, Respondent testified that he carried her down the stairs of the home so as not to injure her, but that she was resisting him. While the taped recording contained sounds indicating that Respondent was being hit by Ms. Rasmussen going up the stairs, the same is not true with respect to the descent. Ms. Rasmussen can be heard telling Respondent to stop, but there is no sound that can be attributed to her head banging against the wall or anyone being dragged down the stairs. Once they were both downstairs, Respondent called in a “1024” on his FHP radio, which means “officer in jeopardy, send help as soon as possible.” The consensus of those officers testifying was that this call is rarely used and is the equivalent of “calling the calvary,” because the officer needs help immediately. Both Rasmussen and Respondent exited the home once the 1024 call was placed. Rasmussen testified at hearing that Respondent offered to take the handcuffs off of her and she refused the offer, saying that she wanted the responding officers to “see me exactly this way.” She got in his truck, which was parked near his locked law enforcement vehicle, and shut the door to get out of the rain. Law enforcement responding to the 1024 call were Marcus Bailey, an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff’s Office; FHP Major Eddie Johnson; and Lieutenant Davis Ward of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. Their arrival at the home was approximately twelve minutes from the call being received by the FHP dispatcher. The Bay County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation of the matter, and because a law enforcement officer was involved, the investigation was conducted by supervisors. As a result of the incident, Respondent was placed on administrative duty on July 11, 2012, and terminated from the FHP July 16, 2012. The officers who responded all saw the video of the cell phone recording, which was also played several times during the course of the hearing. While, curiously, two of the three refer to Respondent as “taunting” Ms. Rasmussen at the beginning of the video, the video does not display or record anything that the undersigned could describe as taunting. It portrayed Respondent expressing dismay at Ms. Rasmussen’s behavior; Respondent requesting that she get her things and leave; Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response; the sounds of Ms. Rasmussen hitting Respondent; Responding placing her under arrest and reciting her rights; and Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response and cries for help and for Respondent to let her go. Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Ronnie Baker, testified that Respondent was a great employee who went “above and beyond,” and who prior to this incident (which Sergeant Baker did not witness), had no complaints against him. Sergeant Baker, among others, testified that Ms. Rasmussen had a reputation for untruthfulness. The undersigned reviewed the tape several times. It is of limited assistance in deciphering what is, in reality, an event where the only witnesses are the participants, Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen. However, after listening to the tape and observing the demeanor of witnesses (both at hearing and in the tape), Ms. Rasmussen’s account of the incident is simply not credible. The sounds on the tape clearly support the testimony that Ms. Rasmussen was hitting Respondent repeatedly as they went up the stairs. There are no corresponding sounds to support her contention that he slammed her head into the wall or dragged her down the stairs. Moreover, the pictures of Ms. Rasmussen do not clearly depict bruising or swelling consistent with her description of the incident. There are slight red marks on Ms. Rasmussen’s wrists, but they do not provide clear and convincing evidence that he dragged her anywhere, much less down the stairs. The marks on her arms are just as likely to indicate her resisting his efforts to carry her down the stairs. Moreover, her claim that he threatened to kill her and dispose of her body in the pond on the property is totally inconsistent with Respondent’s actions in placing a 1024 request for assistance, and waiting at the front of the property for assistance to arrive. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with use of excessive force by slamming Ms. Rasmussen’s head and/or placing handcuffs on the victim tightly and/or dragging her down the stairs while handcuffed. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent slammed Ms. Rasmussen’s head against anything; that he put the handcuffs on her too tightly; or that he dragged her down the stairs while handcuffed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Spaziante (Address of record) Sandra Renee Coulter, Esquire Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a correctional officer may be revoked or otherwise disciplined pursuant to Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, for failure to maintain the qualifications set out in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring such officer to have good moral character. At formal hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Benny Morse Platt, D. H. Coburn, Gerald Abdul-Wasi, and Diane P. Enfinger, and had one exhibit admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the oral testimony of his wife, Frances W. Ping, and testified in his own behalf. One Hearing Officer Exhibit (the Prehearing Stipulation) was also admitted in evidence. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the transcript and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within the extension of time granted by order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are ruled upon, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the appendix to this Recommended Order. Respondent submitted no post-hearing proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 4, 1974, and was issued certificate number CORR/C-0148. Respondent was first employed by the Florida Department of Corrections on November 4, 1974, as a correctional officer at the Hendry Correctional Institution. At all times material to the issues in the case, the Respondent was so employed and held the rank of lieutenant. During early August of 1984, Benny Platt was incarcerated at the Hendry Correctional Institution as an inmate. Platt was acquainted with Respondent Ping, who approached Platt during this period of time requesting a $10,000 loan to defray Respondent's wife's doctors' bills. Another inmate at the prison, Mark Krebs, was a friend of Platt. On August 10, 1984, Krebs was being held in solitary confinement as a punishment for Krebs' violation of prison rules by drinking and fighting. Platt was interested in helping Krebs to be released from solitary confinement so that Krebs would be eligible for work release. Platt approached Lieutenant Coburn, another correctional officer at Hendry, to obtain some relief for Krebs after Krebs had been in solitary confinement for 2 days. It was common practice for inmates to approach Respondent Ping or any other lieutenant for these types of requests, however, at the particular time Platt approached Lt. Coburn on August 10, 1984, Ping was either on suspension or on some variety of leave due to Ping's two previous heart attacks. Lt. Coburn had worked at Hendry Correctional Institution since 1979 and knew Respondent Ping by virtue of their common employment. Respondent had been Lt. Coburn's superior for some period of time in the past. On August 10, 1984, when Platt requested that Lt. Coburn help Krebs, Lt. Coburn said he did not know if he could help but he would look into the situation. Lt. Coburn then asked Platt what Platt could do for him in return. Platt asked Lt. Coburn if he wanted one of the lieutenants, and Lt. Coburn replied, "For what." Platt told him it was for trying to borrow money from inmates. (TR 25-26) On August 11, 1984, as part of a planned investigative technique to verify Platt's story, Lt. Coburn had Platt place a collect telephone call to the Respondent at the Respondent's home. The Respondent accepted Platt's collect telephone call, and with Platt's permission, Lt. Coburn taped their conversation. Platt told the Respondent that he could not get the Respondent $10,000, but could get $5,000 to $6,000 at low interest with no problems. The Respondent replied that this amount would do. Platt then asked about Krebs' release from solitary confinement. The Respondent stated that he did not know what he could do, but as soon as he got back to Hendry, he would see what he could do. This is basically the reply made by Lt. Coburn when Platt had approached him earlier. On August 14, 1984, Respondent returned to work at Hendry. That day, Platt, under instructions from Lt. Coburn, approached Respondent at the prison and engaged him in conversation, which Lt. Coburn again taped with Platt's permission. Platt told Respondent Ping that he had arranged to get a $5,000 loan for Ping and told Ping to meet with Platt's niece at a place in La Belle, Florida, to pick up the money. Platt used the fictitious name "Sylvia Cox" as his niece's name. On August 17, 1984, Florida Department of Corrections Inspector Diane Enfinger, posing as Platt's niece, "Sylvia Cox," telephoned Respondent at his home. By arrangement, the two met on August 20, 1984, at the Crossroads Restaurant a/k/a White's Restaurant in La Belle, Florida. Prior to Respondent's arrival at the restaurant on August 20, 1984, Lt. Coburn provided Inspector Enfinger with $1,000 in cash loaned for the purpose by the Sanibel Police Department, and Lt. Coburn and Inspector Gerald Abdul-Wasi, a Tallahassee Department of Corrections internal inspector, placed recording and receiving equipment in the restaurant's supply room in order to be able to overhear and record the transmissions of a microphone concealed on Inspector Enfinger's person. Lt. Coburn and Inspector Abdul-Wasi concealed themselves in the kitchen where they had a clear view of the table designated for the money transaction. At the appointed time and date, Inspector Enfinger, masquerading as Sylvia Cox," arrived. Eventually, she approached Respondent Ping at his table and he asked her to join him and his wife and a female dinner guest who were with him. Mrs. Ping suggested that Respondent and "Sylvia Cox" go outside to get some papers. Mr. and Mrs. Ping described Mrs. Ping's intent in making this suggestion as a ruse to see if a promissory note or other record of the transaction would be required so that the Pings would know if the transaction constituted a legitimate loan or a "set up." Respondent and Mrs. Ping had plausible, if not probable, reasons for their state of mind and belief that some plot against them by Department of Corrections personnel was afoot, and Respondent had good probable cause not to trust inmate Benny Platt's several representations to him. Respondent Ping knew Platt's relatives were not from La Belle. Platt had dressed unusually on August 14, 1984 so as to cover the concealed microphone given him by Lt. Coburn and Platt's solicitation of Ping both by telephone and in person had followed warnings received by Mr. and Mrs. Ping concerning attempts to oust Ping from employment due to his heart condition and resultant excessive absences. Although the content of these warnings is pure hearsay, the evidence of the warnings has not been accepted for the truth of the content asserted, i.e. that there was any such plot afoot. It is admissible and has been considered only to show the Respondent's and Respondent's wife's state of mind. Respondent Ping testified that he never intended to accept the loan offered by Platt but that if there were loan papers to sign, he planned to explain to "Sylvia Cox" what he had suspected about a plot before he declined the loan, since in his view, a loan agreement would make the transaction legitimate. Otherwise, he was going to cry "foul" and accuse his superiors of trying to trap him. "Sylvia Cox" and the Respondent went outside to the parking area, but since the authorities' plan was for Cox/Enfinger to remain at a specific table inside the restaurant for her safety and for surveillance purposes, she requested that they return inside. Inspector Enfinger and the Respondent then sat at the designated table. Cox/Enfinger told Respondent that she was unable to get all the money, but had $1,000 with her and would get $4,000 to him later in the week. She produced no papers, but counted out ten one-hundred dollar bills onto the center of the table. Respondent picked up the stack of bills, holding it in both hands, then dropped the money, said he had "changed his mind" and did not need any money, and attempted to leave the table. Lt. Coburn and Inspector Abdul- Wasi came out of the kitchen and arrested Respondent for the offense of unlawful compensation by a public official, Section 838.016, Florida Statutes. There are several inferences that can be drawn from Respondent's dropping of the money, but it is immaterial that Respondent maintains he dropped the bills as part of his intent to unmask a "set up" and could not see the kitchen, or that Lt. Coburn and others believed Respondent fled upon seeing Lt. Coburn and Abdul-Wasi out of the corner of his eye. What is material is that a loan, not a gift, was always contemplated by Platt, Cox/Enfinger, and Respondent. According to Platt, Respondent's original request for a $10,000 loan occurred nearly two weeks before Krebs was confined. This renders it impossible for Respondent's original loan request to have been on a quid pro quo arrangement for promised aid to Krebs. Indeed, Platt testified that, "I needed some favors done, so I told [Coburn] if I could talk to Lt. Ping I could get them done." (TR 11). Platt was clearly attempting to ingratiate himself with Lt. Coburn by his attempts to solicit Ping in order to persuade Lt. Coburn to secure Krebs' release from solitary confinement. Platt, at Lt. Coburn's urging, initiated the idea of releasing Krebs when Platt first phoned Respondent, but Respondent, no more than Lt. Coburn, ever agreed to a quid pro quo arrangement. No witness ever directly stated that the loan was conditioned on such an arrangement between Platt and Respondent. Platt vaguely termed it a "money situation," but Lt. Coburn confirmed that the money transaction between Platt and Respondent was to be a loan (TR 29,32). Respondent Ping never indicated to Cox/Enfinger what the money was for (TR 75). Further, it strains reason that since accommodations were made on a regular basis between corrections officers and inmates to get other inmates out of solitary confinement, that anyone involved in this "money situation" could have believed the real $1,000 (let alone the promised sum of $5,000) was being paid by Platt to Respondent in exchange for getting Krebs out of solitary confinement. Additionally, absent any proof that Krebs would have remained in solitary confinement for what seems an extraordinary length of time (August 9 - August 20) or that Respondent released Krebs, or that Lt. Coburn did not release Krebs, all of the "money situation" seems totally separate and apart from any services, illicit or otherwise, which Respondent may have been asked by Platt to perform. Further, Respondent's behavior, while rather extreme and based on suspicion, is adequately explained by his state of mind. His belief that he was being "set up" is not incredible under the foregoing facts as found. On August 21, 1984, Respondent was terminated from his employment at the Hendry Correctional Institution. On January 21, 1986, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in absentia to the charge of acceptance of unauthorized compensation pursuant to Section 944.37, Florida Statutes, with knowledge that same is a misdemeanor of the first degree and upon the assurance of the Court that adjudication would be withheld. (P-1). Such a plea is not admissible in a civil proceeding or in an administrative penal proceeding for any recognized purpose. See Sections 90.410, 90.610, Florida Statutes; Section 610.4, Ehrhardt, Evidence (1984); Barber v. State, 413 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199,1203 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1980) reh. den. 636 F.2d 315 (1981) and Holland v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 352 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, Respondent admitted the plea and waived any objections to admission of the plea. (TR-77).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing this cause as against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 18th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2143 Respondent filed no post-hearing proposals. The following constitutes specific rulings upon Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2. 3, 4, 7. Covered in FOF 3. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 4. Rejected as mere recitation of testimony, as subordinate and unnecessary, as largely not credible and as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in the facts as found. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 5 and 7. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 14, 15, 16. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 9. 17-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19, 20, 21. Covered in FOF 10-11, and 14. 22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23, 24. Covered in FOF 12. 25. Rejected as unnecessary. 26, 27. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 13. 28, 29, 30. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 16. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 17. 33, 34, 35, 38 and 39. To the extent supported by the credible evidence as a whole, covered in FOF 17. 36, 37. Rejected as largely subordinate and unnecessary and otherwise as immaterial and as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as found in FOF 17-18. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in FOF 20. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald T. Ping 6690 Southwest 88th Trail Okeechobee, Florida 34574 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an exemption to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Anthony Thomas, is an applicant for employment at a provider facility controlled by the Department of Juvenile Justice (the Department). As such, Petitioner must complete forms designated to reveal pertinent information regarding Petitioner's background. Part of the documentation required of Petitioner is an affidavit of good moral character. This form lists numerous offenses or acts which disqualify an applicant from employment in a position of special trust. On July 10, 1995, Petitioner completed an affidavit of good moral character and affirmed, under penalty of perjury, that he met the moral character requirements for employment but did not disclose that his record contained one or more of the disqualifying acts or offenses. In fact, Petitioner does have a history containing one or more such acts or offenses. In October, 1987, Petitioner was charged with handling and fondling a child under the age of sixteen years, a second degree felony. In January, 1988, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charges and received a suspended sentence with probation and mandatory counseling. Subsequently, Petitioner violated the terms of his probation and was brought before the court for failure to complete counseling and to remit the fees outstanding for same. In 1994, Petitioner completed the counseling requirement, paid all outstanding fees, and was released from probation having successfully complied with the order of the court. A background search completed by the Department for the July 1995, application revealed the foregoing information. The Petitioner received an unfavorable and disqualifying rating in August of 1995 which he did not dispute. In October of 1996, Petitioner again applied for employment for a position of special trust for a provider facility controlled by the Department. On the affidavit of good moral character for this application Petitioner truthfully revealed that his record contained one or more of the disqualifying acts or offenses listed. Notwithstanding the truthful disclosure, Petitioner again received an unfavorable and disqualifying rating for this employment request. Upon receipt of this denial, Petitioner timely requested an exemption and filed a request for an administrative review of the decision denying same. Petitioner has been employed at the Hope Center for approximately six and one-half months. In order to qualify for this employment, Petitioner obtained an exemption from the Department of Children and Families to work in a position of special trust. Hope Center is a residential facility for adults many of whom have the mental age of a child. Petitioner assists the residents with daily living skills. Throughout his employment at Hope Center, Petitioner has exhibited exemplary conduct and has been entrusted with residents for field trips and apartment visits. Petitioner seeks employment at a Department facility because of his interest in working with youthful offenders and to improve his earning level. Petitioner has similar prior experience working at an academy in Maryland. He met Tadar Muhammad at the Maryland facility when they both served as youth counselors. As director of group living for the Florida facility with whom Petitioner now seeks employment, Mr. Muhammad opined that he would have to have more information before deciding whether or not to hire Petitioner to a position of special trust. While many of Petitioner's witnesses knew of his criminal background, none were aware of the specifics of the charges. In 1987, while still a teenager himself, Petitioner was employed as a youth counselor for a facility known in this record as "PAL." During this time, Petitioner, who was in a position of trust, engaged in sexual conduct with a minor female under sixteen years of age who attended activities at PAL. Petitioner denied having sexual relations with a second minor female. When Petitioner was arrested and charged, both females from the PAL facility were named as participants in the sexual acts with Petitioner. Although Petitioner pled guilty to the charges naming both females, he maintains he was sexually active with only one of the minors. The position now sought by Petitioner does not include minor females. Moreover, Petitioner would not be left with any minor unsupervised. Petitioner maintained he entered the plea because of fear of possible incarceration. Petitioner planned to attend college on an athletic scholarship which the criminal court permitted. Petitioner enjoys a good reputation among his coworkers and peers. Those who testified in his behalf maintain that the acts of his past do not reflect adversely on his current character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order granting Petitioner an exemption to work at Everglades Academy with youthful male offenders. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Anthony Thomas, pro se 5565 Northwest 185th Street Miami, Florida 33055
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, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.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 Lamary 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 Lamary 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 cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary 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 Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary 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, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Larry A. Labay, failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b). If so, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer licensed by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. He received his correctional certificate, number 285033, on July 17, 2009. Respondent was employed by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) from February 16, 2010, through July 18, 2011. Respondent was in a relationship with a woman named Marissa Meszaros. Their relationship began in approximately May of 2011. Ms. Meszaros was the subject of an investigation by the narcotics unit of CCSO, which believed that she might be involved in selling narcotics. A confidential informant had been used to make controlled purchases of controlled substances from Ms. Meszaros. During the course of the investigation into Ms. Meszaros, the drug task force learned that a possible CCSO employee was at the scene of some of the controlled purchases. A video recording of some of the buys showed Respondent directly in front of an illegal drug transaction. As a result, Respondent’s conduct was also investigated. On June 27, 2011, Respondent and Ms. Meszaros were observed riding in Respondent’s red 2000 Dodge pickup truck in the Orange Park area. They were observed leaving the Orange Park mall and going into an area known as a high drug-traffic area, and then south on Blanding Boulevard toward Labay’s residence. Once Respondent left Orange Park and returned from Duval County to Clay County, Detective Mark Maertz stopped Labay’s vehicle because the tag for his truck had expired. Detective Maertz was part of the CCSO’s canine unit. Once the truck was stopped, Detective Maertz deployed his dog, Rex, who alerted to the presence of narcotics. Detective Maertz requested that Respondent and Ms. Meszaros exit the car, and they did so. Ms. Meszaros was found to have crack cocaine in her bra. (A female officer dealt with her at the scene.) Also discovered were trace amounts of a green leafy substance throughout the floorboard on the driver’s side of the truck. The substance was in plain view of anyone getting into the driver’s side of car. As a result of their training and experience, both Detective Maertz, who stopped the car, and Sergeant Shawn Gordon, who actually conducted the search of the truck, recognized the substance as marijuana or cannabis, also referred to as “shake.” Respondent was detained and questioned following the traffic stop. He was questioned after being given his Miranda rights. He also gave consent to a search of his residence. At the beginning of the interview, Respondent denied ever using drugs or seeing Ms. Meszaros using drugs. However, after some questioning, Respondent admitted to giving Meszaros money to buy drugs and seeing her use them. A search of his residence resulted in the discovery of a “bong,” or pipe used to smoke marijuana, in the common bathroom, and a crack pipe in the master bedroom. The marijuana pipe was in plain view in the hall bathroom. The crack pipe was in a cigarette box on the dresser in the master bedroom. Respondent told the detectives who questioned him that they would find the drug paraphernalia in his home. The home was owned by Respondent. Ms. Meszaros had recently moved in with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter an Order finding that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character as defined in rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b) in violation of section 943.1395(7), and revoking his certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey Phillip Dambly, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Labay (Address of record) Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Jorge Cobas (Cobas), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since April 6, 1987, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Cobas. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Cobas had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Cobas and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Cobas filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Cobas denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Cobas on May 1, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana "one time years ago." Other than this isolated occasion, there is no proof that Cobas otherwise used any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Cobas' background, that Cobas possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Cobas, born December 29, 1956, admitted to having used marijuana one time, years ago. Such isolated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Cobas has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Cobas has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Jorge Cobas, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1988, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the employing agency, applied for certification as a correctional officer on behalf of petitioner, Eddie Lewis (Lewis). Accompanying such application was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by the Director of Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department of Corrections) which comported with existing law, and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lewis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provisions of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant of good moral character. 1/ By letter dated November 7, 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) notified Lewis and the Department of Corrections that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You made an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act, with a deadly weapon, a shotgun, but without intent to kill, to do violence to Walter Harrell, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and did an act which created in Walter Harrell a well-founded fear that such violence was imminent. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. In his request for hearing, Lewis specifically denied that he had committed any of the acts which the Commission contended demonstrated a lack of good moral character. The Commission forwarded Lewis' request for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. At hearing, the Commission offered no proof that Lewis had committed any of the acts contained in its letter of denial, or which otherwise rendered questionable the prima facie showing of good moral character demonstrated by Lewis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order approving Lewis' application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of April 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, David Fialko (Fialko), 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 Fialko. 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 Fialko 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 food moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Fialko 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, Fialko filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Fialko 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 Fialko on December 13, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Fialko's use of cocaine occurred prior to 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and was limited to two or three occasions. His use of marijuana commenced when he was approximately 16 years of age, and continued on an occasional basis until he was 19 years of age. Subsequent to 1982, Fialko has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Fialko's background, that Fialko possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his use of marijuana and cocaine prior to 1983. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. In 1982, at age 19, Fialko attended and graduated from the Broward Fire Academy with the aspiration of becoming a fireman; however, due to the want of available positions and the number of applicants, he was unable to secure employment. In January 1983, recognizing that the likelihood of securing employment as a fireman was scant, Fialko entered Sheridan Vocational School to pursue a career as a medical laboratory technician. Following his graduation from Sheridan in early 1984, and his certification as a medical laboratory technician, Fialko was employed by Quality Laboratory. He remained in the employ of Quality Laboratory for over three years, until employed by the County as a correctional officer, and was recognized as an excellent employee. To date, Fialko has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. While Fialko, born December 10, 1983, used cocaine two or three times when he was 19 years of age and used marijuana occasionally between age 16 and 19, such use occurred approximately 7 years ago and was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ More indicative of Fialko's moral character is his continuous employment since age 16, his drive to secure an education and training at his own expense, and his excellent performance in all his endeavors. Overall, Fialko 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, David Fialko, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a corrections officer in 1972 and was so certified at all times here relevant. Respondent was a season ticket holder to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1983 football games. He attended the game on September 25, 1983, with four friends. Before arriving at the game the group bought a fifth of whiskey. Respondent contends he had only one drink prior to the incident with the police officers but three police officers opined that Respondent was intoxicated. During the second half of the game, with the Bucs woefully behind and some spectators leaving the stadium, Respondent was yelling disparaging remarks about the Bucs and their performance on that day. Occasionally, Respondent was standing on his seat when he yelled the remarks. Respondent was more noisy than others in the section in which his seat was located and drew the attention of Jennifer Frye, a City of Tampa police officer serving as a uniformed off-duty policewoman paid the owners of the stadium to maintain crowd control. Officer Frye motioned for Respondent to come to the platform where she was standing, some four rows above Respondent's seat. Respondent did so, climbing between the people and seats behind him as he responded to Frye's summons. When Respondent reached Frye's position, she smelled alcohol on his breath and he appeared to her to be intoxicated. Respondent was somewhat annoyed in being called up by the policewoman and wanted to know why she had beckoned him from his seat. He was gesturing with his arms and asking what he had done wrong. Officer Lois Morraro, another off-duty member of the Tampa police force, was also working in uniform at the stadium. She observed Respondent respond to Frye's request and saw Respondent arguing. Morraro approached the two and positioned herself behind Respondent. Respondent told Frye he was a season ticket holder and was entitled to be upset when the Bucs were losing. Frye and Morraro decided to evict Respondent from the stadium and when Frye initially grabbed his hand Respondent pulled away. She then told him he was under arrest and grabbed his left arm and hand with a come-along grip. Morraro grabbed Respondent's right arm, twisted it behind his back, and moved the hand up toward the shoulders. They proceeded to propel the struggling Respondent down the steps to a holding area. When they reached the holding area they were joined by Sergeant Peter Ambraz, the off- duty Tampa police officer in charge of the stadium detail. Ambraz took Respondent's right arm while Morraro handcuffed Respondent. During this time Respondent was trying to keep from being handcuffed and in the process his elbow accidentally hit Morraro in the throat while she was standing behind him putting handcuffs on him. After Respondent had been handcuffed and taken to the police station, he revealed that he was a certified corrections officer. Respondent was subsequently tried for disorderly intoxication and fired from his job with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.
