The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application for registration as a septic tank contractor on the ground that Petitioner lacks good moral character within the meaning of Section 489.553(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the registration and regulation of septic tank contractors in the state. Petitioner was registered as a septic tank contractor from March 29, 1991, to February 22, 1994, when Respondent's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the "Department"), revoked Petitioner's registration. The revocation of Petitioner's registration in 1994 was based on various violations that began in 1991. In October 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER", now the Department of Environmental Protection, or "DEP") charged Petitioner's company with pumping untreated septage into a manhole in Bonita Springs, Florida. Petitioner entered into a Consent Order in which Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $3,900 and to file prescribed reports and protocols with DER. Petitioner did not pay the fine or complete the filing requirements. DER filed an action in circuit court in Collier County, Florida to enforce the Consent Order against Petitioner. Petitioner entered into a Stipulation and Consent Final Judgment dated April 24, 1993. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Consent Final Judgment, the court imposed a fine of $5,000. Petitioner did not pay the $5,000 fine or comply with any of the other terms of the consent judgment. DER received information that on October 21, 1993, Petitioner's company again dumped untreated septage into the utility system of Collier County, Florida. DER filed a motion for contempt for Petitioner's failure to comply with the terms of the Stipulation and Consent Final Judgment. The circuit court in Collier County ordered Petitioner to pay Collier County $2,417 for the cost of repairing and cleaning wastewater lines required by the dumping of septage sludge into the county utility system. The court permanently enjoined Petitioner from ever hauling septage or sludge and required Petitioner to make monthly payments until the $5,000 penalty was paid in full. Petitioner has not paid any portion of the $5,000 penalty ordered by the court. Petitioner has not paid the $2,417 in costs incurred by Collier County. By Final Order dated May 26, 1993, the Department imposed a $500 fine and six-month probation upon Petitioner because Petitioner's company illegally dumped septage grease into a collection system at Gulf Coast Camping Resort in Fort Myers. Petitioner consented to the fine and probation. During the probation, Petitioner's employees engaged in six separate illegal dumpings into the Collier County Utility System. Petitioner's company illegally spread unstabilized septage on another occasion. On February 22, 1994, the Department revoked Petitioner's registration and imposed a fine of $4,000. Petitioner violated the revocation order by performing four septic system repairs between September and November in 1994. The aggregate cost of the repairs to the customers was $4,150, and the repairs were performed negligently. On January 20, 1995, the Department filed a Petition for Enforcement of Agency Action and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in circuit court in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner did not respond and defaulted. On April 24, 1995, the circuit court in Lee County enjoined Petitioner from engaging in any service related to septic tank systems without the direct supervision of a registered contractor. The court imposed an additional fine of $1,000 and ordered Petitioner to pay the $4,000 fine that had been imposed previously. On May 31, 1995, Petitioner signed a promissory note with the Department to evidence his obligation to pay the $5,000 in fines. Petitioner did not make the scheduled payments required under the note. In January 1996, the circuit court in Lee County issued an Order to Show Cause why the court should not hold Petitioner in contempt of court on two grounds. One ground was for repairing septic tanks without the direct supervision of a registered septic tank contractor and the other was for failing to pay the $5,000 in fines previously ordered by the court. On August 7, 1996, the court found Petitioner in contempt on both grounds. The court ordered Petitioner to pay a minimum of $100 each month until he paid the $5,000 in fines. The first payment was due on August 1, 1996. In April 1998, Petitioner filed a motion with the circuit court in Lee County seeking to modify the injunction against Petitioner. The parties settled the matter. Petitioner agreed to pay the balance of $4,000 due on his fine, and the Department agreed to delete the requirement for direct supervision by a registered septic tank contractor. The court adopted the stipulation of the parties on April 22, 1998. Petitioner paid the remaining $4,000. On October 26, 1999, Petitioner applied for registration as a septic tank contractor. On November 24, 1999, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for registration. The sole ground for denial was that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirement in Section 489.553(4)(a) for good moral character. In determining whether an applicant has good moral character, Section 489.553(4)(a) authorizes Respondent to consider: . . . any matter that has a substantial connection between the good moral character of the applicant and the professional responsibilities of a registered contractor, including, but not limited to: the applicant being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates to the practice of contracting or the ability to practice contracting; and previous disciplinary action involving septic tank contracting, where all judicial reviews have been completed. (emphasis supplied) It is uncontroverted that the prior disciplinary history of Petitioner did not involve any criminal charges or convictions. Section 489.553(4)(a) authorizes Respondent to consider any non-criminal matter in determining Petitioner's good moral character if the non-criminal matter satisfies two conjunctive criteria in the statute. First, the non-criminal matter must have a connection between both Petitioner's good moral character and Petitioner's professional responsibilities. Second, any such connection must be substantial. It is uncontroverted that the non-criminal matters considered by Respondent in determining if Petitioner possesses good moral character are substantially connected to Petitioner's professional responsibilities. The issue for determination is whether there is a substantial connection between the non- criminal matters considered by Respondent and Petitioner's good moral character. Neither party offered any evidence of the meaning of the statutory criteria for a "substantial connection." Respondent's expert did not define "substantial connection" but opined that Petitioner's prior disciplinary history demonstrated the requisite connection. That testimony is neither credible nor persuasive. It is substantially equivalent to the circuitous definition of obscenity offered by one who can't define the term but knows it when he sees it. It is inherently subjective and invites abuse of agency discretion. If Petitioner had offered no explanation for the non- criminal matters in his disciplinary history, the nature and extent of Petitioner's disciplinary history might be sufficient to "infer" a substantial connection between the non-criminal matters and Petitioner's good moral character if such an inference were authorized by statute. However, Petitioner did offer an explanation for his disciplinary history. Petitioner's explanation was credible and persuasive and successfully rebutted any inference of a substantial connection between Petitioner's past disciplinary history and Petitioner's good moral character. Petitioner was 21 in 1991 and the sole owner of his business. Petitioner did not personally dump untreated septage into the Collier County Utility System. Nor did Petitioner direct his employees to do so. Petitioner's employees carried out the dumpings without Petitioner's knowledge. When Petitioner learned of the violations, Petitioner accepted responsibility for the actions of his employees and entered into consent orders with the state agency. Petitioner did not intentionally disregard any fines, costs, or other requirements imposed by state agencies or courts. Petitioner was unable to comply with the orders or to pay fines and costs imposed in the orders because of circumstances beyond Petitioner's control that began with the birth of his son. In 1992, Petitioner's son who was born immune deficient. Two or three times a week, Petitioner and his wife took their son for treatment at the hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida and at Shands Teaching Hospital at the University of Florida. Petitioner and his wife devoted all of their time, attention, and financial resources to the care and treatment of their son. The cost of medical care for Petitioner's son exceeded $3 million and exhausted the $2 million coverage available in Petitioner's personal health insurance policy. All of Petitioner's financial resources went into the care of his son. Petitioner's wife could not work because she devoted all of her time to the care of her son. Although the state eventually paid the amount of medical costs that exceeded Petitioner's $2 million health coverage, there was substantial delay between the time Petitioner incurred the medical bills and payment by the state. Petitioner completely neglected his business between 1992 and 1996 but allowed his employees to assume operating control in an effort to maintain his business income for his family. During that time, Petitioner's company was charged with additional violations. Petitioner had no personal knowledge of the dumping and spraying violations that occurred between 1993 and 1994. Petitioner did not direct his employees to commit those acts. When Petitioner learned of those violations, Petitioner accepted responsibility and attempted to resolve the matters with the respective state agencies. Petitioner had no money for an attorney and attempted to resolve these matters without the benefit of legal representation. Between September and November in 1994, Petitioner was personally responsible for negligently performing septic tank services on four occasions in violation of the order revoking his license. However, no evidence demonstrates a substantial connection between the negligent performance of septic tank repairs in 1994 and Petitioner's good moral character. Negligence lacks the culpable intent inherent in bad moral character. No evidence demonstrates a substantial connection between Petitioner's violation of the revocation order and Petitioner's good moral character. Petitioner testified that he made those repairs under the supervision of, and as an employee of, his father or brother who are both registered septic tank contractors. When Petitioner made the septic tank repairs, Petitioner was facing substantial medical expenses for a severely ill child and arguably had a moral duty to satisfy those responsibilities. Petitioner has a high school education. He has no other vocational training except in performing septic tank services. He began working for his father and brother immediately after high school and later began his own business. Petitioner testified that between 1992 and 1995, Petitioner had no intention of doing anything except taking care of his son. Petitioner relinquished operating control of his business to his employees, relied completely on his employees to run his business, and attempted to preserve his business income because he needed money for his son. Petitioner's testimony was credible and persuasive. Petitioner's prior disciplinary history does not include an act of environmental harm by Petitioner's employees after February 22, 1994, when the Department revoked Petitioner's registration as a septic tank contractor. The most egregious of the violations by Petitioner's employees required them to haul septage. If Respondent grants Petitioner's application for registration, Petitioner cannot haul septage because he is permanently enjoined from doing so by the circuit court in Collier County. Petitioner's prior disciplinary history does not include a violation by Petitioner after the last septic tank repair completed by Petitioner in November 1994. Since that time, Petitioner has paid outstanding fines of $5,000, and Respondent has agreed to allow Petitioner to provide septic tank services without the direct supervision of a registered septic tank contractor. Petitioner has not paid all of the fines and costs assessed against him. However, the evidence submitted by Petitioner refutes any arguable inference that a substantial connection exists between Petitioner's good moral character and his failure to pay the outstanding fines and costs. The evidence shows a substantial connection between Petitioner's failure to make payment and circumstances beyond Petitioner's control. Respondent's determination of Petitioner's good moral character, including the testimony of Respondent's expert, was based solely on a review of the documents contained in Respondent's agency file. When Respondent determined there was a substantial connection between Petitioner's prior disciplinary history and Petitioner's good moral character, neither Respondent nor Respondent's witnesses made any attempt to contact Petitioner to obtain an explanation of Petitioner's prior disciplinary history or to independently investigate the connection between Petitioner's disciplinary history and his good moral character and the substantiality of the connection. Petitioner's explanation showed a substantial connection between Petitioner's prior disciplinary history and circumstances beyond Petitioner's control. Respondent failed to refute Petitioner's explanation with credible and persuasive evidence of a substantial connection between Petitioner's prior disciplinary history and his good moral character. After hearing Petitioner's explanation for his prior disciplinary history, Respondent's expert testified that the evidence did not alter his opinion that Petitioner lacked good moral character because Petitioner still owed fines and costs and because Petitioner had not yet said he was sorry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner possesses good moral character within the meaning of Section 489.533(4)(a) and granting Petitioner's application for registration as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capitol Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capitol Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Mastin Scott Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-9309 Michael F. Kayusa, Esquire 1922 Victoria Avenue, Suite A Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and issued certificate no. 14-84-502-04. Respondent's work in law enforcement in Florida has been as a correctional officer. On the night of December 27, 1986, Respondent left his home to go to the American Legion in Lake City, Florida. On his way he met his friend Eddie Goodbread, Jr. Goodbread asked the Respondent if he could go with him to the American Legion Club. The Respondent agreed to have Goodbread come with him. Once at the American Legion the two men socialized. When they got ready to leave the club the Respondent left with his girlfriend. Goodbread took the Respondent's car and parked it on Myrtle Street. Goodbread then went with the Respondent and the Respondent's girlfriend and another person, which the Respondent describes as a girl, to the house of a friend other than Goodbread. At that point the Respondent and Goodbread split up again. Respondent was then with his girlfriend and Goodbread had the keys to Respondent's car. The Respondent came back later and met with Goodbread. Prior to the rendezvous, while Respondent had been with his girlfriend in her car, he had placed a .25 caliber automatic pistol in the glove box of that car. He had a license to carry this weapon issued by local authorities. The weapon was not contemplated as being a necessary item for his work as a correctional officer. When the Respondent got out of his girlfriend's car and approached Goodbread, the Respondent had the pistol in his coat pocket. Respondent told Goodbread that he was ready to go home because he had to go to work the next morning. Goodbread said, in kidding with the Respondent, that he did not have the car keys and that he had locked them in the car. Respondent recognized that he was joking with him. Nonetheless, Respondent looked in the car and saw that the keys were not there. Respondent returned to Goodbread and told Goodbread to give him his keys. Goodbread again told Respondent that the keys were locked in the car. Respondent told Goodbread that he was starting to go home. Goodbread's reaction to this remark was to get in the car and say "let's go." Goodbread then jumped out of the car and said that he was not ready to go. Respondent told him to come on and give him his keys. Respondent told Goodbread "come on man. Let's go." Goodbread told Respondent that he wasn't ready to go that he wanted to talk to some girl. Respondent said "come on let's go." Respondent took the gun out and said "you are going to make me put this on you. Come on let's go." Goodbread grabbed the gun unexpectedly and the gun discharged and killed Goodbread. Respondent never intended to injure Goodbread in his display of the pistol. Eight or ten witnesses saw the incident. It was investigated by the Lake City Police Department and Respondent cooperated in that endeavor to include turning over the pistol to the police and giving a voluntary statement about the incident. Respondent was charged through the Grand Jury of Columbia County, Florida, with the exhibition of the handgun in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense and contrary to Section 790.10, Florida Statutes. A copy of that indictment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Respondent plead guilty to the offense and was fined $176. The firearm was forfeited to the state, he received 11 days in jail and a condition was placed upon him not to possess a firearm for one year. Respondent claims that as a consequence of the incident with his friend Goodbread he began to drink more than he had before. There being no frame of reference to compare his drinking habits before and after the incident, this comment has little utility in understanding his motivation to drink and drive. It has been established that on September 13, 1987, in the early morning hours of that day, specifically around 1:30 a.m., the Respondent was observed by Deputy Sheriff Charles R. Tate of the Columbia County, Florida Sheriff's office, driving in a reckless manner. In this incident the Respondent pulled out of Church Street onto Bay Avenue in Lake City, Florida, in a reckless manner. The officer speeded up in his attempt to stop the Respondent and engaged the emergency equipment in the officer's car. Respondent went west bound on Bay and turned south on Marion Street which is U.S. 41. In the course of this pursuit Respondent accelerated to speeds up to 65 miles per hour. Respondent finally pulled over around the intersection of Marion Street and Grandview Avenue. Respondent cooperated with Officer Tate in the investigation of the driving offense. This included the officer noting that the Respondent had the smell of alcohol about his person. As a consequence, the Respondent was asked to perform certain activities associated with a field sobriety test to ascertain if Respondent was capable of operating his motor vehicle. When the Respondent tried to perform the finger to nose test which is given with each hand, he was unable to do that with either hand. In trying to perform the walking test Respondent staggered and when he made the return trip in the walking test he nearly fell over and had to support himself. From the observations of the Respondent Officer Tate believed that the Respondent was driving under the influence when the stop was made. He arrested the Respondent for that offense and took him to the Florida Highway Patrol station where Robert Bellamy, a trained breathalyzer operator, administered a breathalyzer test to the Respondent. The results show that the Respondent was registering at .16 at 2:25 a.m., and registering at .15 at 2:27 a.m. with .10 being the legal presumption for impairment. Respondent was then taken to the Columbia County Jail. While at the jail correctional officer Jacklyn Yvonne Jones- Holland attempted to fingerprint his right hand. Ms. Holland knew of the Respondent before this evening but had had no opportunity before to speak to the Respondent. In the course of the fingerprinting Respondent took his left hand and rubbed it on the side of the officer's leg in the area of her groin. The first time he did this she stepped back on the chance that the Respondent was unaware of what he was doing at the time. However, when she moved the Respondent again put his hand on her leg in the area of her groin. Based upon the facts of this case in which Officer Tate describes the quality of the Respondent's impairment on a scale of 1 to 10, as being a 5 and Ms. Holland describes this impairment to be 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, Respondent is not found to be so under the influence that he did not realize what he was doing when inappropriately touching Ms. Holland in two instances. When he touched her the second time Ms. Holland went to another part of the building and made out a complaint against the Respondent for his assault and he was arrested for that offense. An Officer Myers read the Respondent his rights related to the assault during which conversation Respondent said, "I'm drunk. Oh yeah, that's what I'm here for. I'm drunk." There was no verbal exchange between the Respondent and Ms. Holland during the inappropriate touching. Ms. Holland had not invited those actions by the Respondent. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 constitutes the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation for the offense of driving under the influence and the disposition of that case in which the Respondent was fined $411, had his license suspended for six months, and attended school for persons who have driven under the influence. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and received other counseling contemplated for persons who may have drinking problems. Respondent says that he does not drink at present and no evidence was offered which would refute that claim. Respondent was charged under information with the unlawful, intentional and knowing touching or striking of Jacklyn Yvonne Jones-Holland and plead guilty to battery. He received a period of probation of one year for that offense. Certified copies of the information and order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the defendant on probation can be found as exhibit numbers 5 and 4 respectively. The reckless display of the firearm leading to the death of his friend, and the battery committed on Ms. Holland are all indications of a lack of good moral character and are events for which the Respondent has no acceptable explanation or excuse. Driving under the influence is reprehensible but does not show a lack of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the certificate of the Respondent for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3816 The facts as presented by the Respondent are commented on as follows: Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not accepted to the extent that it argues that the incident involving the death of Mr. Goodbread is directly responsible for the fact that the Respondent was driving under the influence on the night in question and committed the battery on Ms. Holland. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Respondent was too under the influence to understand the fact of his battery against Ms. Holland is rejected. His testimony that he does not have a recollection of touching Ms. Holland runs contrary to the impression of the facts, that impression being that the act of the Respondent was volitional. The idea of his cooperation with Trooper Bellamy in the administration of the breathalyzer examination and the efforts to comply with what was expected of him in responding to the circumstance of the driving under influence offense is recognized as mitigation, but does not explain away the offense. The suggestion in Paragraph 7 that the death of the friend and the driving under the influence are interrelated is not accepted. Respondent did indicate that he was emotionally upset over the death of his friend, this would be expected but it is not clear to what extent his drinking increased following the death of the friend as compared to his drinking habits before that time. Respondent's suggestion that he is free from the effects of alcohol problems at present was not refuted. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he presently has any problem with alcohol abuse. Reference to other traffic violations and his service record as a correctional officer leaves a neutral impression of the Respondent which is neither to his advantage or that of the Petitioner. Consequently, the facts of those prior events have not been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1792 Lake City, Florida 32056-1792 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in proceeding, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on March 11, 1983 and issued Certificate Number 502-3844. The Respondent was a correctional officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office beginning in January 1983. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent resided with Ms. Burton (who has subsequently married Respondent and is now known as Elaine Burton Edwards) and two of her children. One of her children, Karl McInis ("Karl") was twenty three months old at the time and he was in the process of being toilet trained. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent discovered that Karl had "messed" on the floor and/or in his pants. The Respondent felt that the child's actions were deliberate and that the child needed to be disciplined. Therefore, Respondent struck the child fives times with a leather belt. There is a dispute as to the type and size of the belt used. While Petitioner contends that Respondent used his heavy Sheriff's Deputy belt, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent used a typical men's trousers belt. As a result of the discipline described in paragraph 5 above, Karl suffered bruises on his buttocks and legs. Subsequent to the incident, the child was removed from the home by HRS. He currently resides out of state with his grandparents. Criminal charges were brought against Respondent after HRS reported the incident to the police. However, after Respondent successfully completed a counseling program as part of a pre-trial intervention program, the charges were nolle prossed on November 10, 1988. As a result of his arrest, Respondent was suspended from his job at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department pending the outcome of the criminal case. Respondent has not been reinstated. After completing the counseling program, Respondent altered his methods of disciplining his children. On most occasions, Respondent has refrained from using corporal punishment and instead attempts to apply the assertive discipline procedures he learned in the counseling program. However, Respondent admits that on a few occasions when he felt the children did not respond to the assertive discipline techniques, he has resorted to corporal punishment. On March 2, 1989, Respondent disciplined one of his children, Julius Edwards, by striking him five times on the palms of the hands with a belt. At the time of the incident described in paragraph 10, Julius was five years old. Julius and at least one other sibling from Respondent's previous marriage were living with Respondent and Ms. Burton. Respondent punished Julius because he felt the child was deliberately engaging in a pattern of obstinate conduct in an attempt to be returned to the custody of his natural mother. That conduct included eating excessive amounts of food after being instructed not to. During the punishment, Julius struggled and at least one of the blows landed on his arms. As a result of the punishment, Julius had bruises on his arms which measured approximately four inches long and one inch wide. As a result of the corporal punishment administered by Respondent to Julius, Respondent was arrested and ultimately adjudicated guilty of a misdemeanor for violating Section 827.04, Florida Statutes (child abuse) on March 29, 1989 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, in case no. 89-5869MMA08. As a result of this conviction, Respondent was required to undergo additional counseling. While the bruises suffered by the children in the two incidents described above are significant cause for concern, neither of the children required medical attention. At the time of both of the incidents in question, none of the other children evidenced bruises, they all appeared well-fed and there was no other evidence of any neglect. Indeed, the evidence reflects that the Respondent is a dedicated and caring father. He is extremely concerned about the many negative influences that affect children in our society. As a result, he believes it is important for him to discipline the children in an attempt to ensure that they choose the right path in life. Respondent contends that he was raised with a similar type of discipline and finds it difficult to understand the commotion caused by his attempts to discipline his children in the manner in which he was raised. While his motives are good, he has used very poor judgment in certain situations and imposed excessive punishment given the age of the children and the nature of their behavior. Respondent has aspired to be a law enforcement officer since his high school days. He has spent hundreds of hours as a volunteer for various school projects and programs involving children. He has strived hard to be a good role model and an active member of his community. However, he needs to temper his concerns and enthusiasm with more sensitivity to the rights of others. There is no indication of any deficiencies or problems in Respondent's job performance. Indeed, the only evidence introduced regarding his performance as a law enforcement officer indicated that he was dedicated, concerned and responsible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and seriousness of the offense as it relates to the public trust placed in a correctional officer who guards those incarcerated by society, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order placing Respondent Glenn S. Edwards' correctional officer certification on probation for a period of two years and requiring him to complete an appropriate counseling program for parents while refraining from any further violations of Section 943.13(1)-(10). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 10th day of April 1990.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Homer Rozier has been certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. On February 17, 2003, Respondent was employed at the South Bay Correctional Facility. He resigned from that employment on or about July 16, 2003. On February 17, 2003, Chad Pelham was employed as a loss prevention officer at the Wal-Mart located in Clewiston, Florida. As a law enforcement officer certified by the State of Florida for the five years previous, Pelham had been trained in law enforcement techniques, including observation, and was qualified to perform store security duties. On that date, Respondent and his wife entered the Wal- Mart to shop. Since other Wal-Mart employees told Pelham they suspected that Respondent had stolen items from the store on previous occasions, Pelham and his partner followed Respondent and his wife, watching them as they shopped. Respondent and his wife selected some baby shoes from the shelf, removed the tags, and placed the shoes on their infant. They continued walking through the store, stopping to remove a bottle of water from the Wal-Mart cooler, and drinking the water as they shopped. Respondent and his wife proceeded to the houseware section. Respondent removed two wallpaper borders and a bathroom tumbler from the displays and hid them in his baby's diaper bag that he had in the shopping cart. In the deli department of the store Respondent and his wife obtained a bag of chicken. They ate the chicken as they walked through the store and then discarded the bag. In the electronics section of the store Respondent took two magazines related to certain electronic games, such as Nintendo X-box, and put them in his shopping cart. These magazines were sold by Wal-Mart for approximately $15 and $13. When Respondent was in the housewares section he placed the magazines under some towels (or rugs), concealing them. Respondent and his wife then proceeded to the cashier and paid for some of the merchandise they had taken. They did not pay for the chicken they had eaten or the water they had drunk or the baby shoes they had placed on their baby's feet. After paying for the items in their cart and having those items placed in blue Wal-Mart bags, Respondent and his wife left the register area as they would do to exit the store. They did not exit, however. Instead, carrying the Wal-Mart bags containing the items they had paid for, they split up, with Respondent returning to the housewares section and his wife returning to the groceries section. In the housewares section, Respondent retrieved the gaming magazines he had hidden under the towels (or rugs) and placed them in the Wal-Mart bags containing items that had been purchased. He then rejoined his wife in the grocery aisles where they placed some small items in the bags containing the items that they had purchased. They then proceeded to exit the store without returning to a cashier to pay for the items they had not purchased. After Respondent and his wife exited through the first of two sets of exterior doors, Pelham and his partner detained them. Pelham and his partner retrieved the merchandise Respondent and his wife had not paid for and contacted the City of Clewiston Police Department. Officer Demetrius Scruggs responded to the call, coming to the store and arresting Respondent for retail theft.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and suspending his certification as a correctional officer for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Homer Rozier 633 Southwest Eighth Street, No. 5 Belle Glade, Florida 33430
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a building inspector on August 6, 2003. The application was reviewed by Respondent and subsequently denied on the basis that it contained “materials which questions [sic] the good moral character of Petitioner,” and that Petitioner’s application "failed to provide complete supporting documentation relating to all previous disciplinary actions which could also impact a determination concerning [Petitioner's] moral character." No notification that Petitioner’s application lacked supporting documentation was sent by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner’s application lists prior convictions for traffic-related offenses, such as careless driving, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. Petitioner has never been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, false statement, fraud, or theft. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony. Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time that all of the traffic-related offenses were committed. Petitioner is now a recovering alcoholic who has been actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) for over three years on a voluntary basis. His sobriety date is May 25, 2001. The sobriety date is important because it marks the date when an alcoholic makes and implements a commitment to a new way of life. AA operates on the principle generally accepted by the medical community that alcoholism is a disease, and not a moral issue. AA operates on the principle that although there is no cure for alcoholism, there is a daily reprieve. AA is a 12-step program providing guidelines to living. AA works only if the alcoholic follows the twelve steps to the best of his or her ability. A person who is not willing to change his or her life cannot be helped by AA. AA is an ongoing lifetime process of personal improvement, the pinnacle of which is service to others. Petitioner is a totally different person now as compared to the way he used to be. Petitioner admits that his alcohol-related impairment was the primary cause of the episodes of misconduct prior to his commitments to a life of sobriety and to the principles of the AA program. Petitioner’s last criminal conviction was in 1998. Since becoming sober, Petitioner purchased his own home and recently married. Petitioner is an officer in his AA home group, with responsibilities that include overseeing the group’s activities, setting up meetings, chairing meetings, providing coffee, and paying rent for the meeting site with monies that the group has entrusted to him. Petitioner regularly chairs his home group meetings, and has spoken on alcohol-related issues to several other community groups, including the Salvation Army and the Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner has become a person of integrity who cares about others, reaching out to new AA attendees as a mentor. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped drinking. Joe Iagrossi has known Petitioner for a little more than two years. Petitioner is employed by Iagrossi’s company, Construction Inspections of the Palm Beaches. Iagrossi considers Petitioner to be a reliable, honest, and truthful employee, trusts Petitioner’s judgment, and has confidence in his work. Iagrossi believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, as well as the character to observe the difference. There have never been any conduct issues with Petitioner, and he possesses a good reputation within the company. Iagrossi is of the opinion that Petitioner can practice building inspection with reasonable skill and safety to the general public. Richard Sussan is Petitioner’s AA sponsor and has known Petitioner for two years. Sussan considers Petitioner a person of integrity, who cares about others, is reliable and honest, and is very committed to AA. Petitioner is a member of, and is actively involved with the activities of, Christ Fellowship Church. Petitioner is a regular volunteer in the church’s Special Needs Ministry. The Special Needs Ministry is a program which allows families of children with special needs to attend regular church services by providing volunteers to watch the special needs children during that time. For the past two years Petitioner has volunteered every other Sunday to watch a special needs child so that the child's parents can attend church services. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and church members who know him, and in that group he enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. Petitioner worked for the architectural firm of Ames Bennett & Associates, P.A. for fifteen years. Petitioner’s duties included field inspections for residential and commercial projects, for code and contract compliance, from geotechnical and foundation through trim work, ADA, and fire safety oversight. Petitioner also managed the office, paid bills, interviewed job applicants, and showed new employees inspection techniques. Petitioner passed the Southern Building Code Congress International certification examination for Building Inspector on November 20, 2001. Petitioner passed the International Code Council certification examination for Building Inspector on September 18, 2003. Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code governs enforcement of the Florida Americans with Disabilities and Accessibility Implementation Act. The Act defines “disability” as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and includes alcoholism."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2004.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 31 years old. He has lived in Florida for the past 11 years. Petitioner works at a rehabilitation center that provides services to individuals with substance abuse problems. He has worked in that job for about a year. As a client advocate, he works with children 16 years of age and older. For ten years Petitioner has served as a volunteer basketball coach in the Flagler County Police Athletic League (PAL). He currently coaches the high-school-aged girls' travel team. Over the years he has coached boys and girls in the fourth grade through the twelfth grade. For three or four years Petitioner has been a volunteer in a church-based youth ministry program. He supervises, mentors, and provides encouragement to the children in the program. Petitioner applied for an educator’s certificate so that he can coach basketball at the high school level. He does not need the certificate to continue coaching in the PAL, but he needs the certificate to work or even volunteer as a high school coach. Petitioner was employed as a certified correctional officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI) for about four years, until September 23, 2007. TCI is a state prison in Volusia County, Florida, operated by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). As Petitioner was driving to work at TCI on September 23, 2007, he saw a team of DOC investigators conducting a drug interdiction at the facility. He pulled his car over to the side of the facility’s entrance road and threw a small package out of the car window before proceeding to the parking lot. TCI staff saw Petitioner throw the package from his car and informed the DOC investigators. The DOC investigators went to the area and recovered the package. The package contained marijuana. It was in a plastic baggie and had been tightly wrapped in paper towels and then covered with medical tape. The manner in which the marijuana was wrapped is consistent with the most common way that drugs are packaged when they are smuggled into a prison. The package was small enough and flat enough to be hidden in a man's boot or around his crotch area and not be detected during a cursory pat-down search. After Petitioner was told by DOC investigators that a drug-sniffing dog alerted to his car, he voluntarily spoke to the investigators and admitted that the package found next to the entrance road was thrown there by him, that he knew it contained marijuana, and that he threw it out of his car when he saw the drug interdiction team at the facility. However, Petitioner denied that he planned to sell or give the marijuana to an inmate or anyone else “inside the walls” of the facility. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he received the marijuana the day before the incident while he was at a fundraising car wash for his PAL basketball team. The children on the basketball team were at the car wash when the marijuana was delivered, as were Petitioner’s children. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that his sister-in-law called him before the car wash and asked him to help her by allowing a friend to bring marijuana for her to Petitioner at the car wash. She said she would later pick it up from Petitioner. Petitioner told the DOC investigators, and he testified at the final hearing, that he did not give much thought to her request because she was a family member and one should always help out family members. When the marijuana was delivered, Petitioner was at his car which was a distance away from where the cars were being washed. He wrapped the marijuana in paper towels and medical tape, which he had in his car from a prior injury, so that his children, who were helping wash the cars, would not see it when he drove them home in his car. His sister-in-law did not come to pick up the marijuana after the car wash. He forgot that the marijuana was in his car until he was close to work the next day. When he saw the interdiction team at TCI, he stopped and threw the marijuana out of the car. He then drove into the parking lot, parked his car, and went in to work. Petitioner was immediately arrested after his confession to the DOC investigators. He was charged with possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana and introduction of contraband into a state prison. Both of those charges are felonies, but for reasons not explained in the record, the State Attorney elected not to prosecute either of the charges. Petitioner was immediately fired from TCI after his arrest, and he subsequently lost his certification as a correctional officer. Petitioner testified that he understands that what he did was wrong, that he is sorry for what he did, and that he will never do it again. This testimony appeared to be sincere. The character witnesses who testified on Petitioner’s behalf at the final hearing all testified that Petitioner is a good person and a good role model for the children that he coaches and mentors; that this incident was out of character for Petitioner; and that they have no concerns about Petitioner working with children. This testimony was sincere and clearly heartfelt. Although the DOC investigators weighed the marijuana while it was still wrapped and determined that it weighed 37.8 grams, they did not weigh the marijuana itself after removing it from its packaging. There is no competent evidence in this record as to the weight of the marijuana. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the amount of marijuana Petitioner threw from his car would have constituted a felony or a misdemeanor. Similarly, there is no competent evidence in this record as to whether Petitioner was on the grounds of a state prison when he threw the marijuana from his car. There are no security fences, no checkpoints, and no security towers before one reaches the signage for the correctional facility and its attendant structures. Petitioner believed that he would have been on prison property if he had passed by the signage for the facility and had crossed the road surrounding the perimeter of the prison. One of the DOC investigators testified that the property boundary was several hundred yards before the entrance sign. The photographs admitted in evidence visually suggest that the correctional facility's property commences beyond the sign and beyond the location where Petitioner threw out the marijuana. There is no competent evidence as to whether Petitioner was on state property with the marijuana in his possession. Petitioner denies that he intended to introduce contraband into the correctional facility. Rather, his actions in throwing the marijuana out of his car at a location he believed to be outside of the facility's property suggest he did not intend to bring the contraband onto the grounds of the facility. Petitioner has met the qualifications for obtaining an educator's certificate to enable him to coach basketball on the high-school level.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for an educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 2nd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sidney M. Nowell, Esquire Justin T. Peterson, Esquire Nowell & Associates, P.A. 1100 East Moody Boulevard Post Office Box 819 Bunnell, Florida 32110-0819 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mariam Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer. His certification number is 184024. Respondent worked for the Department of Corrections (DOC) as a correctional officer for six and one-half years. He resigned from DOC on March 15, 2005. Respondent’s resignation followed an investigation by DOC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) into allegations that Respondent posted photographs of himself on an adult website and that he was involved in an escort service. The investigation, which was conducted by Senior Prison Inspector R. M. Spurlock, commenced after the OIG was provided a copy of a webpage printed from the Internet by Stephen Ruble, a correctional officer who worked with Respondent. The webpage printed by Officer Ruble is dated December 7, 2004, and contains two photographs of Respondent along with a photograph of an unidentified white female referred to as “Heavenly Blonde.” In one of the photographs, Respondent is standing and wearing only G-string underwear. In the other photograph, Respondent is sitting and wearing a tank-top shirt and tight shorts through which Respondent is displaying the outline of his penis. The text accompanying the photographs on the webpage printed by Officer Ruble states: Top Secret If you are looking for a classy and friendly, bi, black male who is 11x6 inches thick and can take you to the next level, then you’ve come to the right place! I am d/d free, and I have the papers to show this. I have sexy friends who can join us. Also available for doubles sessions with my friend Heavenly Blonde. I’m based in Orlando but travel the entire state of Florida, plus out of state, so please check in with me. Just give me a call and see what we can come up with! If you like to view me on camera, please contact me. Incall rates: $65 / ½ hour $150 / each additional hour Couples, join me and Heavenly Blonde: $200 / hour $100 / each additional hour $250 / hour for men to join us Heavenly Blonde by herself: $150 / ¾ hour Top Secret [phone number1] Mr. Spurlock visited the same webpage on March 9, 2005, as part of his investigation. The copy of the webpage printed by Mr. Spurlock on that date contains the photograph in which Respondent is standing and wearing only G-string underwear, but Respondent’s head had been cropped from the photograph and the photograph had been enlarged to focus on the outline of Respondent’s penis that is clearly visible through his underwear. The photograph in which Respondent was sitting and displaying the outline of his penis through his shorts was no longer on the webpage. The photograph of Heavenly Blonde was also no longer on the webpage, but there was a photograph of an unidentified black female referred to as “Secret Angel” who was posed in a sexually-provocative position wearing only a bra and G-string underwear. The text accompanying the photographs on the webpage viewed and printed by Mr. Spurlock states: Top Secret Hi, I am Topsecretone from the Orlando area. I am very put together and love to have fun. I have many friends that can join us, male or female. For example, my friend Secret Angel is available to join us! I only want to talk to someone that knows what they are into and what they want. I am a Black male with a truly thick 11”x6” of manhood. Please contact me for all info, leave your full name, number and if you are at a hotel room number. Top Secret topsecretone@cfl.rr.com[2] Mr. Spurlock interviewed Respondent on March 15, 2005, as part of his investigation. Respondent voluntarily appeared for the interview, which was conducted at Respondent’s place of employment, DOC’s Central Florida Reception Center. The interview lasted for approximately 20 minutes, and Respondent’s statements during the interview were made under oath. In the interview, Respondent initially denied that he posted any photographs of himself online or that he was involved with an escort service. However, after Mr. Spurlock showed him copies of the webpages that he and Officer Ruble had printed, Respondent changed his story and admitted that he posted the photographs of himself on the webpage; that in connection the posting he offered to provide, and did provide, his sexual services for money; and that he had been advertising his sexual services over the Internet since 2001. Respondent’s admissions during the interview are found to be reliable. The admissions were accompanied by details regarding the operation of webpage, the manner in which Respondent was compensated for his sexual services, and the reasons why Respondent cropped his head out of the photograph after its original posting. There is no credible evidence that the admissions were coerced and, indeed, Respondent expressly acknowledged as much at the end of the interview. Respondent testified at the final hearing that the reason that he ended up making the admissions during the interview was that he was under a great deal of stress at the time, as evidenced by the fact that “just before the interview” he was given 30 days of “stress leave” by his doctor. That explanation is not persuasive because Respondent later testified that the leave occurred in November and December 2004, which was more than three months before the interview. Respondent resigned from DOC approximately 15 minutes after the interview concluded. In his testimony at the final hearing, Respondent did not deny that he is depicted in the photographs on the webpage printed by Officer Ruble and Mr. Spurlock. However, Respondent did deny that that he posted the photographs on the webpage. Respondent testified that several months after his interview with Mr. Spurlock, he learned that his ex-girlfriend posted the photographs on the webpage to “set [him] up” and “get [him] in trouble” because she was upset with him because he would not marry her. He further testified that he was unaware that his ex-girlfriend had posted the photographs on the Internet. Respondent’s explanation at the final hearing as to how the photographs appeared on the Internet is not credible. His uncorroborated, self-serving testimony on the issue was not persuasive. For example, Respondent’s claim that his ex- girlfriend posted the photographs on the webpage out of spite is illogical because he testified that he and his ex-girlfriend did not break-up until June 2005, whereas the photographs printed by Officer Ruble (in December 2004) and by Mr. Spurlock (in March 2005) predated the break-up. Respondent testified that he had no disciplinary problems during the course of his employment with DOC. The Commission offered no evidence to the contrary. The record does not reflect whether Respondent is being criminally prosecuted for the escort services that he advertised on the webpage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order revoking Respondent’s certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 2nd day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 2, 1981, and was issued certificate number 02- 29012. On September 7, 1985, the Respondent, who was then employed as a policeman by the town of Mount Dora, arrested Roger Bivins for driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding. Subsequent to arresting Mr. Bivins, the Respondent transported him to the Lake County, Florida, jail for booking. The Respondent and Mr. Bivins entered the jail booking room at about 4:15 a.m. Sergeant Paul Bass and Officer Edward Johnson, jail correctional officers, were on duty in the booking room at the time. The Respondent instructed Mr. Bivins to be seated on a bench in the booking room. Mr. Bivins, whose hands were handcuffed behind his back, complied. The Respondent checked the arrest affidavit and booking sheet which had been prepared in connection with the arrest of Mr. Bivins, and submitted them to Sergeant Bass for approval. The Respondent then turned his attention to Mr. Bivins who sat on the bench. The Respondent asked Mr. Bivins if "he could have his handcuffs back." Mr. Bivins answered "no" and added that he intended to have a lawyer "take care of it." Mr. Bivins offered no physical resistance, nor did he physically threaten the Respondent. The Respondent became angry and shouted at Mr. Bivins. The Respondent said he could "take his gun and badge off." The Respondent then grabbed Mr. Bivins by the arm, stood him up, and hurled him very hard head-long four to five feet into some steel jail bars. Mr. Bivins, who was still handcuffed with his hands behind him, could not catch himself. Mr. Bivins struck the bars with the right cheek of his face and then fell backward onto his back, dazed. His face and back were injured as a result. Sergeant Bass intervened and assisted Mr. Bivins to a nearby desk. Sergeant Bass observed an injury to Mr. Bivins' face and observed "seven or eight welts" on Mr. Bivins' back. Sergeant Bass was concerned about these injuries and contacted the jail nurse, Mary Jo Robbins. Ms. Robbins, a licensed practical nurse employed by the Lake County Jail, saw Mr. Bivins at about 4:55 a.m. Ms. Robbins observed the welts on Mr. Bivins' back and hematomas under his right eye. The hematomas appeared "purplish" and swollen to Ms. Robbins who concluded Mr. Bivins had suffered a "pretty hard lick." Ms. Robbins gave Mr. Bivins Tylenol capsules for his pain, and recommended that he go to the hospital to get an X-ray of his face because the force of the blow suffered by Mr. Bivins could have fractured a facial bone. Although no bone was broken, Mr. Bivins suffered pain for two to three days thereafter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that certificate number 02-29012 held by the Respondent, Milton J. Tinis, be revoked. Hearing Officer WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 22nd day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Milton J. Tinis 1502 Tyringham Road Eustis, Florida 32726 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and 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
The Issue The issue is whether the certification as a correctional officer issued to Willie L. Tillman (Tillman) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Tillman is certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued certificate number C-3171 on October 7, 1977. At all times relevant to the charges, Tillman was employed by the Volusia County Department of Corrections (VCDC) as a correctional officer at the Daytona Beach Correctional Facility. In June of 1988, Tillman held the rank of corporal, a promotional rank. His chain of command ran from Sergeant (now Lieutenant) Fitts through Lieutenant (now Captain) Bolton, his shift commander. Tillman knew or should have known that he had a duty to immediately report any use of force against an inmate and to obtain medical attention for any inmate against whom force was used. This duty to immediately report such an incident and to seek medical attention for the inmate involved is important for the health of the inmate and for the protection of the correctional institution and correctional officer against unwarranted claims of injury. At all times material to these charges, the policy and rules of the VCDC, as taught to correctional officers, required that correctional officers avoid one-on-one physical confrontations with inmates and recommended that a correctional officer faced with a potentially hostile or aggressive inmate attempt to disengage himself from the confrontation, diffuse the threat through conversation if possible, and obtain assistance from other officers before approaching or making physical contact with the inmate. The only exception to this rule of disengagement is in the case of a sudden or spontaneous attack by an inmate. On June 22, 1988, Tillman, a very large and muscular man, was making a head count at about 11:00 p.m. Tillman thought that inmate George Hoover had squirted toothpaste on his back as he walked past Hoover's cell. Tillman told the officer who was working with him to open the cell. Tillman then entered the cell and struck Hoover in the jaw and face with a closed fist. Hoover fell on to his bunk. Tillman did not report the incident and he did not seek medical attention for Hoover. Tillman had no valid reason for his failure to report the incident and he was not excused from reporting the use of force that night before leaving the job site. Hoover requested medical attention, which brought the use of force to the attention of the VCDC. Hoover suffered a loosened tooth from being struck by Tillman. When confronted with the matter, Tillman said that he entered Hoover's cell to remove contraband, namely cups of water and coffee. Hoover assumed a boxing stance and Tillman struck him in response to that perceived aggression. Tillman's stories then and at hearing are simply unbelievable. The incident report that Tillman finally wrote said he removed contraband cups of water and coffee from the cell. The officer with Tillman that night never saw any cups removed. At hearing for the first time Tillman said that the contraband consisted of cups of urine and feces which added to the level of threat which he felt. Tillman's testimony in this regard is contrary to his own reports prepared in 1988 and is contrary to anything Tillman had said or reported before the hearing. As the trier of fact, the undersigned simply finds that Tillman was not truthful in his testimony on this and other matters. It is also not believed that Hoover, a small man weighing about 150 pounds, assumed an aggressive boxing stance with Tillman, a man about twice his size. From the evidence it can only be concluded that Tillman engaged in an unprovoked and unnecessary use of force by striking Hoover with his fist. Based on the rules, policies and procedures of the VCDC, Tillman should not have entered Hoover's cell in a one-on- one confrontation after Hoover squirted toothpaste on him. After he had entered the cell, Tillman should have withdrawn and disengaged from the situation to avoid a confrontation even if Hoover had assumed an aggressive stance. Finally, after the use of force occurred, Tillman should have reported it and should have sought medical attention for Hoover immediately following the incident and should not have left work that night without doing these things. Tillman was verbally counselled about the rules and policies related to disengagement and reporting of use of force. On October 14, 1988, while supervising a group of inmates returning from eating, Tillman became involved in a vocal argument with inmate William F. Elmore. Tillman repeatedly goaded Elmore to hit him, but Elmore attempted to withdraw from Tillman. Tillman hit Elmore in the jaw with his closed fist. Elmore attempted to walk away from Tillman, but Tillman pursued him and threw him up against a wall more than once. Elmore was between 5'7" and 5'10" and weighed between 165 and 180 pounds. Tillman claimed that Elmore approached him with raised hands in a semi-boxing stance. No other witness, either officer or inmate, mentioned any such aggressive approach or stance on the part of Elmore. One officer said that he thought that Elmore tried to kick Tillman. One inmate said that Elmore may have flinched or something, but that he did not see any aggressive posture or movement by Elmore. Tillman did not disengage or attempt to avoid the one- on-one confrontation with Elmore, even when Correctional Officer Zima called to Tillman to offer help. Instead, Tillman was aggressive and abrasive with Elmore. Tillman then over-reacted to the situation which he had provoked and used excessive force against Elmore. As a result of this incident, Tillman was recommended for termination, but he successfully appealed the termination and was instead suspended for ten days. Tillman was counseled that his interpretation of the use of force rules was erroneous and was told that when an inmate assumes an offensive posture such as a boxing stance, Tillman was not to strike the inmate. In the early morning of July 15, 1989, Tillman instructed Correctional Officer Trainee Anderson to open the cell door of inmate Michael P. Frascella, so that Frascella could clean up a mess he had made in and around his cell. Frascella was in an observation cell because of an earlier disturbance he had created. After cleaning up, Frascella was returning to his cell and noticed an apple on the desk. He reached for it and Tillman told him to put it back. Tillman then hit Frascella in the face with a closed fist. Frascella fell to the floor. Anderson heard the sound of the fall, looked over, and saw Frascella laying on the floor, glassy-eyed and bleeding from the mouth area. Tillman denies that he touched Frascella in any way and says he never saw Frascella on the floor or with blood on his face. This is why he says no use of force report was ever filed. Frascella's testimony is more credible regarding this incident than is that of Tillman. While it is clear that Frascella bears ill feelings toward Tillman because of the incident, his statements are more consistent with those of Anderson. Tillman clearly did not tell the truth regarding the incident with inmate Hoover and there is considerable doubt about his truthfulness regarding Elmore. There is no reason to believe that Tillman has been any more forthright about what happened with Frascella. Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is concluded that Frascella's version is the closest to the what actually happened that morning. Former inmate and trustee Dwight Jensen testified about an incident in which Tillman struck an inmate with no justification. While it cannot be determined whether that inmate was Frascella, the testimony of Jensen is probative regarding Tillman's moral character and suitability to retain his certification as a correctional officer. From Jensen's testimony it can only be concluded that on an occasion which may or may not have been the one involving Frascella, Tillman struck an inmate in the face and nose in retaliation for verbal abuse from that inmate. That inmate's nose was so badly injured that Jensen was required to mop up considerable blood from the floor. That inmate was provided with no medical attention because he was placed on a bus to Starke within a couple of hours after he was struck. Jensen was incarcerated from 1988 to March of 1990. Since Tillman was suspended following the incident with Frascella until his termination, it is further concluded that Jensen's testimony relates to the same time frame as that relevant to this complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order and therein revoke certificate no. C-3171 issued to Willie L. Tillman. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 14th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3263 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3&4(3); 5(6); 6&7(4); 8(5); 9(6); 14&15(7); 23&24(16); 25&26(17); 27(18); 29(21); 30(22); 31&32(23); 33(24); 34&35(25); and 38(26). Proposed findings of fact 10-13, 16-22, 28, 36, and 37 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John P. Booth Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Willie L. Tillman 2400 Spring Hollow Drive Orange City, Florida 32763 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
