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 The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate #11-89-002-01. In February 1990, Samuel O. Best was employed as a police officer by the City of Port St. Joe Police Department. During the early part of February, Respondent accompanied a woman to a local motel where the two shared a room and engaged in sexual intercourse. While the two were in the room, the Respondent thought the woman smoked two and one-half cigarettes. The items she smoked looked like normal cigarettes. However, Respondent was not paying close attention to the woman's activities or any odor of the smoke because he had his mind on more prurient matters. As the two prepared to leave the room, the Respondent, as was his habit, straightened the motel room. The woman had dropped one of her cigarettes on the floor and Respondent picked up the cigarette and placed it in his pocket. The Respondent forgot about the cigarette in his pocket and kept it for approximately two or three days. Around February 8, 1990, the afternoon of the second or third day after his liaison with the woman in the motel, Respondent went to his father's home and sat on the front porch. The Respondent was on duty. While contemplating the bleakness of his life, in part due to the intense personal problems he was having with his wife, Respondent, who was a heavy smoker, began looking for a cigarette to smoke. He found the motel woman's cigarette in the pocket of a shirt he had worn for three days. He pulled it out, looked at it and lit it. During this activity the "insurance man" was walking up to the house. Officer Best thought the substance in the cigarette was tobacco. However, it tasted like perfume and he put the cigarette out after one puff. He then left the porch to get his father for the insurance man. There was an absence of any competent and substantial evidence reflecting the identifying the substance contained in the cigarette as marijuana. Additionally, no changes in Respondent's behavior were noted by any of his fellow officers or supervisors at any time surrounding the events on February 8, 1990. On February 22, 1990, Chief Richter of the Port St. Joe Police Department received a citizen complaint regarding the Respondent. The insurance agent complained that he had observed the Respondent in police uniform on the porch of the Respondent's father's home smoking. That same day, Chief Richter contacted the Respondent and directed him to come to Chief Richter's office to discuss the complaint. Upon his arrival in Chief Richter's office, Chief Richter told the Respondent what the citizen had alleged. 1/ Chief Richter asked the Respondent if he would answer questions regarding the allegation. The Respondent voluntarily agreed. The initial discussion between Officer Best and Chief Richter lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Officer Best's interpretation of what Chief Richter told him was that the Chief had decided that Officer Best had been smoking marijuana. Officer Best thought his Chief would not misinform him, and he did not argue with Chief Richter over the issue of whether or not the substance was marijuana. However, Officer Best did not know with any certainty what the substance was that he had inhaled briefly while sitting on his father's front porch. After the initial discussion, Chief Richter then placed the Respondent under oath and began to question him while tape recording the interrogation. From Respondent's point of view, the reference to marijuana during the interrogation was merely a convenient label for referring to the cigarette he briefly puffed on his father's front porch. Neither the reference or his responses to questions using the term marijuana was intended to be an admission of knowing drug use. Given the Respondent's demeanor at the hearing, it is understandable under the facts of this case, that even with some training in drug identification, Respondent was not able to identify the substance in the cigarette and that he was also very submissive to what he believed to be a superior officer's view of the matter. As a result of the Respondent's statement, he was discharged from his employment with the Port St. Joe Police Department. However, even with the dismissal, the overwhelming evidence in this case is that Respondent remains of good moral character and remains capable of performing his duties and working with his fellow officers. Moreover, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent at any time knowingly possessed or ingested marijuana. Given these facts, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Samuel O. Best be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 242571, issued to him by Petitioner. On July 16, 2005, Respondent was involved in an altercation with Chelsey Traband, the woman he lived with in Cape Coral, Florida. In the course of the altercation, items were thrown around the interior of the house, Respondent damaged a closet door and window, and clothing was thrown into the front yard. These actions, and perhaps associated noise, caused a neighbor to call the Cape Coral Police Department, and two police officers went to the scene to investigate. The officers observed bruises on Ms. Traband's left arm, a minor scratch on her right arm, and three parallel scratches on the top of her right breast, one of which was relatively deep. In a statement made to Officer Frank Antos, Ms. Traband stated that the bruises and scratches were inflicted by Respondent. At the hearing, Ms. Traband attempted to recant the statements she made to Officer Antos on July 16, 2005, claiming that he told her what to say and threatened to arrest her and take her to jail if she did not make the statements. Much of Ms. Traband's testimony was evasive and lacking in credibility. She had a motive for lying, because she still lives with Respondent and does not want him to be disciplined. Sorting Ms. Traband's credible statements from her lies, it is found that Ms. Traband started the aggression by slapping and hitting Respondent. However, at some point, Respondent straddled Ms. Traband while she was on her back on a bed, grabbed her breast and twisted it violently. Although both Respondent and Ms. Traband testified under oath at the hearing that the marks on her breast were caused when Respondent pushed Ms. Traband away from him in self defense, the testimony was not credible. It contradicts the statement Ms. Traband made on July 16, 2005, and her former statement is consistent with the marks on her breast as depicted in the photographs. On the day of the incident, Ms. Traband told Sergeant Allan Kolak that Respondent had been smoking marijuana earlier that day, and she had thrown the pipe he had used to smoke the marijuana into the field behind the house. She showed Officer Antos where to find the pipe, and he found a small wooden pipe. Sergeant Kolak testified that the pipe was the kind used to smoke marijuana, it was not the kind of pipe used to smoke tobacco, and it had a smell that he knows from his training and experience is the smell of burned marijuana. After reading Respondent his Miranda rights, Sergeant Kolak questioned Respondent about the pipe, and Respondent volunteered that he had tried to smoke the marijuana residue in the pipe earlier that day.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Rozell L. Hester failed to maintain good moral character and ordering that his certification as a correctional officer be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed certified public accountant in the State of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The Respondent's license number is AC 20884 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The information filed by the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A, alleged that the Respondent unlawfully did solicit Detective Rick Shaw to commit the offense of murder in the first degree, an offense prohibited by Section 782.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and in the course of such solicitation, did command, urge, hire, or request the Mr. Shaw to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense, to wit: to unlawfully and from a premeditated design effect the death of Zena Leider, a human being, contrary to Section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was convicted in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A of one count of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was sentenced to be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 17 years. After serving a period 12 years, the balance of the sentence shall be suspended; and he will be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Daniel Hevia, CPA, was accepted as an expert in the profession of accountancy and testified concerning that profession (Transcript, pg. 24). Accountancy is based upon professional judgment, both technical and ethical. People practicing accountancy must have good ethics and a strong character because of the types of judgments which have to be made in the profession (Transcript, pg. 26). Accountants have to have mature judgment and maintain good mental stability because the public places a great deal of trust in CPA's (Transcript, pg. 27). Good moral character means a personal history of honest, fairness, respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the State of Florida and the nation (Transcript, pg. 25). The Respondent's conviction shows a lack of good judgment and an absence of ethics and good character which adversely effect the Respondent's ability to practice public accounting (Transcript, pg. 42). In the opinion of Mr. Hevia, the Respondent violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Transcript, pgs. 28 and 30).
Recommendation Having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain good moral character; and having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by being convicted of a crime relating to his ability to practice public accounting, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-6424 The Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons stated: 1-10. Adopted. 11-12. Rejected, as repetitive and cumulative. 13-14. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Martha Willis Executive Director Board of Accountancy Department of Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 16 Gainesville, FL 32606 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tobi C. Pam, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 David S. Leider D.C. #118606 Sumter Correctional Institution P.O. Box 667 Bushnell, FL 33513-0667
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 1979, petitioner Joseph William Smith executed a personal questionnaire in support of his application for a beverage license. On sheets of paper attached to the application, he listed some, but not all, of the occasions on which he was arrested. At one time respondent lived in Savannah, Georgia, where he was arrested at least as early as July of 1956. An arrest on July 10, 1958, eventuated in a two month stay in jail as punishment for armed robbery. On November 18, 1967, petitioner was arrested for threatening somebody with a weapon, an accusation of which he was subsequently found not guilty. In 1968, he was sentenced to 30 days for shoplifting. Petitioner was arrested for gambling with dice in January of 1971. He was arrested again on May 26, 1972. In June of 1973, he was found not guilty of robbery. Also in 1973, he was placed on probation for buying and receiving stolen property. In June of 1975, petitioner was found not guilty of murder. He was found not guilty of possession of marijuana in March of 1978. Petitioner lives in one of the worst neighborhoods in the United States. The uncontroverted testimony was that a person could be arrested simply for standing on a street corner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for a beverage license. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph W. Smith 818 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
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.
Findings Of Fact On March 23, 1981, the Petitioner, Isidro R. Crucet, applied to the Respondent, Department of State, for licensure as a Class "D" (unarmed) and Class "G" (armed) security guard. The application for Class "D" and "G" licensure was denied on September 23, 1981, by the Director of the Division of Licensing pursuant to Section 493.306(2)(b)(1), 493.309(1)(e), 493.319(1)(a), (c), (g) and (p), Florida Statutes. On October 6, 1981, the Petitioner Crucet requested a hearing on the licensure denial. The basis for the Department's denial was the Petitioner's guilty plea on April 24, 1981, on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon following an information being filed against him in Dad County Circuit Court on April 5, 1981, which alleged violations of Section 790.01, Florida Statutes, carrying a concealed firearm, and Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. Following his guilty plea, the Petitioner Crucet was sentenced to eighteen months probation beginning April, 1981, and adjudication and sentence were withheld. At the final hearing, the Petitioner Crucet, through his interpreter, explained the events which led to his being charged and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm. Since early 1981, the Petitioner has been employed by Minutemen Security Patrol. In April, 1981, he was working the 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m. shift guarding a warehouse located at 3050 North River Drive in Miami. Adjacent to the warehouse area which he was guarding was a bar. A patron of the bar wanted to park his car in the warehouse area which the Petitioner was guarding since the bar parking area was full. When the Petitioner refused to allow the bar patron to park in the warehouse parking area, the patron became abusive and threatening. After the bar patron grabbed his neck and shoved him aside, the Petitioner went to his car and returned carrying a 33 caliber gun retrieved from the glove compartment which was lawfully purchased and for which he had received a temporary gun permit. When he reached the area where the bar patron had threatened him and the individual saw the gun, he left in his car. Although the gun was loaded, the Petitioner did not point the gun at anyone nor did he leave the area he was responsible for guarding. Approximately one hour after the incident the police arrived at the warehouse and asked the Petitioner if he had a gun. The Petitioner replied that he did and turned the gun over to the police. He was then arrested and booked on April 5, 1981. The Petitioner arrived in the United States from Cuba on May 1, 1980. He testified that while in Cuba he had worked on trains. He is presently working as an unarmed security guard for the same company which employed him when the incident in question occurred. Since the Petitioner arrived from Cuba, it is impossible at this time for the Respondent Department of State to ascertain from official records his criminal history in that country, if any. In this regard, the Petitioner is not unique and this is a situation that confronts all entrants from countries with whom the United States does not maintain formal or informal diplomatic relations. The Petitioner Crucet produced affidavits from individuals who were friends and neighbors in Cuba and who now reside in the United States. All of these individuals, who include an auto store clerk, a grocery store owner, a Community Service Agency owner and a supermarket owner, attest to his good moral character in Cuba and in the United States since his arrival in 1980. Additionally, the Petitioner's attorney, Jorge Fernandez, testified at the formal hearing that he knew the Petitioner, his family and his employer and would vouch for the good moral character and reputation of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner informed the Hearing Officer at the close of the final hearing that one of the conditions of his probation prohibit him from receiving a license as an armed security guard without the permission of his probation officer. However, once the Petitioner's probationary period has ended, it is the intention of Mr. Fernandez to attempt to expunge the Petitioner's record and reapply for a license as an armed security guard. The Respondent Department of State offered no evidence to refute the Petitioner's account of the incident which resulted in his guilty plea for carrying a concealed weapon or the character affidavits filed following the close of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Petitioner Isidro R. Crucet for licensure as a Class "D" unarmed security guard be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jorge Luis Fernandez, Esquire 221 S.W. 22nd Avenue Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33135 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Room 106, R. A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone R. Stephen Nall, Esquire Secretary of State General Counsel The Capitol Department of State Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE ISIDRO R. CRUCET, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-2625S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Respondent. /
