The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact Jacquelyn Kendrick is the owner of the Club Ecstasy, an adult entertainment club with dancers and strippers, located in Fort Lauderdale. In August 1996 the Club had a contract for security services with Warrior, a security agency. Respondent Manuel Vernerette, as an employee of Warrior, provided security services at the Club. When Warrior's relationship with the Club ended, Kendrick approached Respondent Vernerette with regard to working for the Club. Although Vernerette was currently employed by Navarro during the day, he was able to work at the Club at night. Kendrick also asked him if he knew others who would work at the Club, and he referred several other Navarro employees to Kendrick, who interviewed them. One of the Club's employees would check identification and frisk the Club's customers for weapons outside the front door. The customer could then enter the Club, purchase a "ticket", and then pass through a second door into the "actual" Club portion of the premises. The customer's ticket was collected at the second door. Vernerette's duties were primarily to "collect the tickets" at the second door. He also helped stock the bar and collected money from customers who wanted to use the "VIP rooms". He also had some supervisory responsibilities over some of the Club's employees he had referred to Kendrick. Vernerette only worked inside the Club. On November 23, 1996, two of Petitioner's investigators appeared at the Club to check identification and licenses of any security officers working at the Club. When they arrived, Vernerette was outside with several other Club employees he had referred to Kendrick. Someone other than Vernerette was stationed at the door searching customers. Vernerette appeared to be overseeing the operation. Although all of those employees wore dark clothing, they were not in uniforms. At the request of the investigators, Vernerette produced his Class "D" security officer license and his Class "G" firearm license. At the time Vernerette, who also holds a concealed weapon or firearm license, was wearing a 9 mm. semi-automatic firearm in a gun belt which was covered by his jacket. He was also wearing a badge. He told the investigators how many security officers were working inside the Club and that they could come outside to have their licenses checked. Those persons were summoned. The investigators did not go into the Club that night. In response to the investigator's questions, Vernerette told them that all the security officers were employees of the Club. He specifically used the term "in-house" security. He was cooperative with the investigators. The investigators were told that "Jackie" was the person they needed to speak to regarding the employment status of the security officers but that she was not there. On January 30, 1997, the investigators returned to the Club since they had been unsuccessful in their attempts to contact Jackie. She was there that night. Vernerette was not since he had stopped working at the Club by January 3. Jackie denied that Vernerette and the other security officers were employees. She was unable to produce any documentation regarding her relationship with Vernerette or the other security officers. She had no contract, no payroll records, and no cancelled checks. She advised Petitioner's investigators that she paid Vernerette, sometimes by check and sometimes in cash, and that he then paid the others. After the investigators interviewed her, Kendrick began using deputies from the Broward County Sheriff's Office to provide security services at the Club. In February 1997 Vernerette received his Class "B" license, a security agency license. He visited Kendrick at the Club, gave her a proposal to provide security services at the Club, and gave her his new business card. The business card advertises Armstar Protective Services, lists Vernerette as the President and C.E.O., and includes his Class "B" license number. Vernerette did not conduct the business of a security agency without being so licensed when he worked at the Club. He worked there as an employee of the business and not as an independent contractor. Further, Vernerette did not perform security officer duties at the Club between November 23, 1996, and January 30, 1997.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I, III, and V and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Yolanda Fox, Esquire Law Offices of C. Jean-Joseph Mercede Executive Park 1876 North University Drive, Suite 309C Plantation, Florida 33322 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Irving Weissbrod (Weissbrod) held a Class "K" Firearms Instructor Licence Number K87-00026 /1 , which allowed him to provide classroom and range instruction to applicants for a Class "G" license. Weissbrod has been teaching the firearms qualification course since 1987. Weissbrod was required by Rule 1C-3.128, Florida Administrative Code, to use the Department of State, Division of Licensing's Firearms Instructor's Training Manual (Training Manual) in teaching the course for a Class "G" license. In early March, 1995, Richard Thomas Railton (Railton), an investigator for the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department), was given the assignment to attend a Class "G" training course which was being given by Weissbrod through his business, Florida Firearms Corp. The purpose of the assignment was to determine whether the training being given met the minimum hours required by statute. Railton called Weissbrod to arrange for the class. Weissbrod told Railton that the cost of the course was $144.00. Railton obtained the money from the Department and converted the funds to a money order payable to Florida Firearms for $144.00. Railton identified himself to Weissbrod as Richard Thomas. On March 14, 1995, Railton went to Florida Firearms, where the class was to be conducted. He arrived around 6:45 p.m. There were two other students in the class, Paul Stephenson and an unidentified male. When Railton arrived at the class, he advised Weissbrod that he had extensive experience with firearms, that he had been a policeman for seven or eight years, and that he was currently a private investigator. Stephenson advised Weissbrod that he had been a private investigator for about ten years and that he had a lot of firearm training. The third student had no training in firearms. The Training Manual requires that an instructor provide 13 hours of instruction on the legal aspects of the use of firearms; fours hours of instruction on operational firearms safety; three hours of firearms mechanical training; and eight hours of firearms range qualification. The class started at 7:05 p.m. During the first fifteen minutes of class, Weissbrod processed the students' paperwork, collected fees, and gave receipts. When Railton paid his fees, Weissbrod charged him only $134.00 because Railton did not need to have a photograph taken for his license application. Weissbrod told the class that he taught an accelerated class and that he could teach the required information in less time than the state requirement of 28 hours. From 7:20 to 7:40 p.m., Weissbrod explained the definitions of misdemeanors and felonies and discussed firearm violations in the two categories. He also discussed the meaning of reasonable and deadly force. From 7:40 to 8:10 p.m., Weissbrod passed out copies of an examination and reviewed the questions and answers with the students. While they were reviewing the examination, Weissbrod remarked, "I'll be out of here real early tonight." At 8:10 p.m. Weissbrod passed out an examination for the students to complete. By 8:35, the students had completed the examination. Both Railton and Stephenson passed the written test. Weissbrod told them to meet at Big Al's Gun Range the next evening at 7:30 p.m. for range qualification. Weissbrod told one student that they would be finished with the range qualification by 8:00 p.m. On March 15, 1995, Railton and Stephenson met Weissbrod at the firing range at 7:30 p.m. The third student did not participate in the range qualifications on that evening. Railton and Stephenson fired their guns and their targets were scored. Both men passed the range qualifications. Weissbrod issued certifications to Railton and Stephenson, stating that they had received 28 hours of training. Weissbrod admitted that Railton and Stephenson received less than the 28 hours required by Section 493.6115(8), Florida Statutes; however, he submits that it was an isolated incident, and no evidence was presented to the contrary. Notwithstanding, his violations were flagrant and, whether isolated or not, were knowingly committed. On March 22, 1995, the Department issued an Emergency Suspension Order, alleging that Weissbrod committed fraud, deceit, negligence or misconduct in the practice of regulated activities under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, based on essentially the same facts that are alleged in Counts I through VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint. On April 13, 1995, an Order was issued vacating the Emergency Suspension Order. Thus, Weissbrod had been effectively suspended by the Department from March 22, 1995 to April 13, 1995, a period of 22 days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order finding that Irving Weissbrod violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes as set forth in Counts I through VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $300 for each Count (a total of $1800) and suspending his license for one month. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 25th day of March, 1996.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of numerous provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, regarding the several licenses held by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact During October of 1990, Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was in a suspended status due to his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Department of State. His Class "B" license expired July 10, 1991, and has not been renewed. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent held a valid Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Class "M" Manager License was issued in July of 1985 and expired in July of 1987. He did not possess a valid Class "M" license in October of 1990. On approximately October 1, 1990, Respondent changed his business location from 2950 Northwest 214 Street, Opa Locka, Florida, to 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent did not notify the Department of his address change within ten days of moving. The Department was notified of the address change sometime in May of 1991. On October 18, 1990, May Weiser, an employee of Respondent, appeared at the Department of State, Division of Licensing, West Palm Beach Regional Office to obtain applications for licensure. Ms. Weiser was wearing a security officer badge depicting a replica or facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The badge was issued to her by Respondent. On October 19, 1990, Investigator Frank Bedingfield of the Division of Licensing inspected Respondent's business address at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. At that time it was determined that Respondent did not possess or have on display a valid Class "B" Security Agency License, an agency disclosure notice, a manager's license, or the required city and county occupational licenses. On that occasion, Respondent was dressed in a security guard uniform and was wearing a .357 caliber model 686 Smith & Wesson revolver loaded with three rounds of .357 caliber steel jacket ammunition and three rounds of .38 special hollow point ammunition. Respondent was also wearing a badge that depicted a facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was unable to provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of security agency employees or any business records including hiring and termination notices, and informed the investigator that records were not available due to his recent move. However, he agreed to meet with Mr. Bedingfield again on October 22, 1990, to provide the records. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was providing security guard services to four Miami churches. At the same time he was soliciting business and mailing advertisements in West Palm Beach. Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was issued February 23, 1990, was suspended for nonpayment of a fine on September 13, 1990, and was due for renewal on July 10, 1991. Respondent informed Mr. Bedingfield that the fine would be paid by October 22, 1990, in the Miami Regional Office of the Division of Licensing. On October 24, 1990, Mr. Bedingfield returned to Respondent's business location at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was again wearing a .357 revolver even though he had been notified of the violation during Mr. Bedingfield's previous visit on October 19, 1990. Respondent told Mr. Bedingfield that he had requested a waiver from the Division of Licensing to carry other than a .38 revolver, but could not produce a copy of his request or an approval of such request. The Division of Licensing never received a waiver request from Respondent. Mr. Bedingfield's return visit also revealed that Respondent was again wearing a security badge with the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Respondent did not have a Palm Beach County occupational license and could not provide any evidence that he had notified the Division of Licensing of his change of business address. He could not provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of employees, copies of his agency security guard contracts, personnel files for the previous two years, or records of all terminations and new employments. Nor could Respondent produce evidence of current general comprehensive liability insurance. He did provide Mr. Bedingfield with approximately 73 employment applications of current and previous employees. Using these records Mr. Bedingfield compiled a list of guards and produced computer printouts of each current and previous employee. As of October 24, 1990, Respondent had failed to notify the agency of the hiring or termination of 43 employees. Respondent's insurance had been cancelled for non- payment of the premium in August of 1990. At the time of the events described in the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent had overlooked, or was not aware of, a number of the statutory requirements such as the requirements that he notify the Department when he changed business locations, that he display an agency disclosure notice, and that he not use the Great Seal of the State of Florida on his badges. He has since painted over the Great Seal on the badges. For reasons not clarified on the record in this case, Respondent's manager's license states that it is "non-expiring," notwithstanding the statutory provision that all licenses issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, shall be valid for two years.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: (a) Concluding that Count V of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed for insufficient proof; (b) Concluding that the Respondent committed all of the other violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (c) Imposing the following administrative penalties: A suspension of the Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License for a period of one year; A suspension of the Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License for a period of one year; and An administrative fine in the total amount of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of May 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-1015 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties in this case. Findings submitted by the Petitioner: All of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner have been accepted in substance. Findings submitted by the Respondent: The Respondent's proposed recommended order consists of nine unnumbered paragraphs, none of which are specifically identified as proposed findings of act, but most of which contain factual assertions. All of the factual assertions in the Respondent's proposed recommended order have been treated as if they were proposed findings of fact and are specifically addressed below. First paragraph: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed facts. Second Paragraph: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Third Paragraph: Accepted. Fourth Paragraph: First two sentences rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Last sentence accepted. Fifth Paragraph: First paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; there were other reasons the licenses were not on display. Second sentence is accepted. The last two sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Sixth Paragraph: First sentence accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Seventh Paragraph: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because other evidence establishes that at the time in question the Respondent was conducting and advertising the business of a security agency. Eighth Paragraph: Rejected as constituting comment on a subordinate matter, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Ninth Paragraph: This paragraph consists of a suggested disposition of the case, rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Dave Burgess, Jr. Post Office Box 552590 Miami, Florida 33055 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, an employee of Vanguard Security and the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. Vanguard Security (hereinafter referred to as "Vanguard") is an agency which provides armed and unarmed security services to its clients. Vanguard has a written policy prohibiting the display and use of firearms by its security officers except where such conduct is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm. Vanguard also has a written policy forbidding its security officers from leaving their assigned posts while they are on duty. These written policies are set forth in an employee handbook that all employees of the agency are given. On the evening of October 25, 1993, Respondent was assigned to provide armed security services in a warehouse area in Dade County, Florida. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening Andrea Ramsey was walking her friend's unleashed dog, a Doberman pinscher named "Chewy," in the vicinity of the warehouse area Respondent was responsible for guarding (hereinafter referred to as Respondent's "post" or "posted area"). Chewy's owner, Eileen Escardo, was working late in her photography studio which was located across the street from Respondent's post. Respondent saw Ramsey from afar. His suspicions aroused, he walked toward her to investigate. Respondent left his posted area and started to cross the street that separated the posted area from the warehouse in which Escardo's photography studio was located. When he was approximately 20 feet from Ramsey, he asked her if Chewy, who was by a tree to her left, was her dog. Ramsey responded in the affirmative. Chewy then, in a leisurely manner, headed toward Ramsey and Respondent. Although Chewy was moving in Respondent's direction, he did so in a manner that did not reasonably suggest that he was going to attack Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent panicked. Contrary to his employer's written policies regarding the display and discharge of firearms, he drew his revolver and, when Chewy was approximately three or four feet away from him, fired the weapon, but without any intention of shooting the dog or Ramsey. The bullet hit and shattered the glass door of the business next to Escardo's photography studio. Fortunately, no one was hurt or injured. Ramsey screamed when Respondent fired his revolver. Escardo heard her friend's scream, as well as the shot that preceded it. She rushed out of her studio to see what had happened. Escardo saw Ramsey standing in the middle of the street, with Respondent nearby holding a revolver. After instructing Ramsey to call the police, Escardo walked toward Respondent. Pointing his revolver at Escardo, Respondent warned her to stay away from him. Despite the warning, Escardo, who was unarmed, continued to approach Respondent until she was close enough to push him and the revolver aside. She then turned around and walked toward her studio to wait for the police.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violations of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in alleged Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his Class "G" statewide firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of July, 1994. _ STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of July, 1994.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 11, 1998, alleges that when Respondent, upon termination of his employment, failed to return his identification card and uniform items to his employing agency, he committed violations of Section 493.6111(5)(c), Florida Statutes, and Section 493.6118 (1)(f), Florida Statutes. The issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed those violations and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul Alan Sangster, holds a class "D" Security Officer License No. D92-16595, effective November 3, 1996. While so licensed, on or about January 8, 1997, Respondent was hired as a security officer by Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. (Southland). Jill Murphy, the human resources director for Southland, hired Respondent and issued him items required for his employment. On January 8, 1997, she issued him a uniform shirt and trousers, a shirt badge and collar brass; on January 17, 1997, she issued him another shirt and an identification card; and on January 24, 1997, she issued him another shirt badge. Each time he was issued uniform items, Respondent signed and dated a uniform inventory sheet with this statement: By affixing my signature below, I am accepting receipt of uniforms and/or equipment for my official use. I understand that I am fully responsible for uniform clothing and/or equipment and will pay the full replacement cost on each item that is not returned when requested. I also understand that this uniform and/or equipment is the sole property of Southland Security and Investigations, Inc. I further agree that within five (5) days of termination of my employment, I shall return the uniforms cleaned and pressed, as I received it, or shall pay the cost of such cleaning and pressing. In the event I fail to return any part of my uniform or any equipment, I agree to pay the company the full replacement cost as indicated above plus all attorney's and collectors fee incurred in the recovering said cost. (Petitioner's Exhibit A) Mrs. Murphy terminated Respondent's employment on or about March 8, 1998. He had told her that he got another job. When Ms. Murphy later tried to reach Respondent, she was told that his phone was disconnected and she was never able to reach him. Respondent never returned the uniform items and identification card to Southland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the agency issue its final order finding that Respondent violated Sections 493.6111(5)(c) and 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, when he failed to return his uniform and identification card to his former employer, and assessing an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Paul Alan Sangster 352 Buttonwood Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Debbie Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Michele Guy, Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent held a valid Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License issued by the Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent was convicted of Assault with Intent to Murder on June 8, 1960 in the State of Georgia and his civil rights have not been restored. A person by the name of John P. Piner was sentenced by the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, on June 8, 1960, to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor for a period of not less than three (3) years and not more that four (4) years for the crime of Assault with Intent to Murder. The sentence was suspended and the Defendant was placed on probation and fined. Respondent, John P. Piner, during all relevant times was on active duty with the United States Army and remained so until his honorable separation from the service on June 23, 1969, after more than twenty years of service. The evidence failed to show that the person named in the Sentencing document found in the records of Richmond County, Georgia was the same person as the Respondent named in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to show that the Respondent, John P. Piner, was adjudicated guilty of the felony of Assault with Intent to Murder in the State of Georgia by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be DISMISSED and that Petitioner's application for renewal of his concealed weapon or firearm license be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 2, 3, 4. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: Section 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Donald R. Henderson, Esquire Mateer Harbert & Bates Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802-2854 Honorable Jim Smith, Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application for Class "A" and "B," Private Investigator and Security Guard or Patrol Licenses. Petitioner was denied these licenses on the grounds that he lacked the requisite one year's experience in the State of Florida in the field for which he wished licensure. Petitioner was born in 1942, graduated from high school in 1960, and began to train dogs professionally in 1961. Gradually, through training guard dogs, patrol dogs and other specially trained dogs, the Petitioner entered the security business. He was granted a private investigator license by Pennsylvania in 1971, and later was licensed by Pennsylvania to provide security services. His company, which recently changed its name from K-9 Training School to Associated Security Specialists of Pennsylvania, (Associated), grew until it now employs 90 to 100 employees. Petitioner is now the President of this Pennsylvania corporation and was Chief of Security for the company until moving to Florida. Petitioner is still an active officer of this corporation, traveling to Pennsylvania frequently to participate in management of the company. Employees of Associated are engaged in foot and' mobile security patrols at businesses, apartments and industrial sites; surveillance of operations; personnel security; riot training; and security and crowd control at sporting and entertainment events for private and public employers. Petitioner has personally been licensed as a private investigator in Pennsylvania since 1971, and holds a Pennsylvania firearms license and firearms qualification certificate. Petitioner moved to Florida in December of 1978, and purchased a home in Citra, Florida, in approximately June of 1979. Prior to June, 1979, he lived with his mother in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has attempted to obtain employment as a security guard at several licensed guard services. He has been denied employment because of his potential competitive position if he acquires in-state experience. Some agencies have even offered to hire him if he would pay them for letting him get the experience. Petitioner meets all of the criteria for licensure except one year's experience in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head deny the applications for Class "A" and "B" Licenses of the Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Morris S. Finkel, Esquire 3352 North East 34th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Findings Of Fact During the past two years the Petitioner has twice been convicted of the crimes Intoxication and Resisting Arrest. On each occasion he pled guilty and was fined. These two convictions are the only blemishes on the Petitioner's record, other than a Driving While Intoxicated arrest in the 1960's. The Petitioner's wife died approximately three years ago, and it appears that he had some difficulty adjusting to his loss. The Petitioner has been working now for several months as a guard for the Wackenhut Corporation, and has performed admirably. He has received excellent evaluations from his employer. The Petitioner is in all other respects qualified for licensure as an unarmed guard. The fact that the convictions for Intoxication and Resisting Arrest are fairly recent would weigh very strongly against issuance of a gun permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Donald F. Gage has been employed by Respondent Central Security Services, Inc. (CSS), since 1978, when he retired from military service, and has been president of the company for approximately one year. At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent CSS was a licensed patrol agency in the State of Florida. In October of 1982, Robert D. Weber was employed by CSS as a supervisor. The individual who actually employed him was Respondent Gage, who knew Weber quite well, as they had been in the military together, where Weber had approximately 20 years' experience with handguns as a military policeman. Weber had been an employee of CSS previously, but had left prior to the time Gage came with the firm. He had previously held a gun permit, but that license had expired more than six months prior to his being rehired. When Weber came back with CSS, he applied for a Class "D" unarmed guard license and had been issued a temporary license of that class. That temporary license authorized him to work as an unarmed guard, and he was so working as an unarmed supervisor. However, the company planned to use him in the position of an armed supervisor, and, to that end, Weber went to Petitioner's Orlando office to inquire about getting a temporary, upgraded "G" license. Part of the requirements for that license is qualification as competent in the operation of a firearm. Because Weber had not received his permanent "D" license, due to the fact that his fingerprints had not yet been cleared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he was advised by Mr. Willie Rister, Petitioner's employee, that he could not get the "G" license he wanted. As a result, Weber left the office without filing the application. Respondent Gage also made telephonic inquiry of Mr. Rister on Weber's behalf and was likewise turned down. However, in an effort to complete as many of the preliminary requirements as possible, on October 13, 1982, Mr. Russell L. Luedke, Assistant Director for CSS, whose job includes setting up weapons training for CSS employees, issued a 0.38 caliber revolver to Weber and similar weapons to several others who were to qualify. No ammunition was provided, as it was to be furnished at the range. Luedke told each individual, including Weber, to use the weapon at the range, to thereafter take it home and clean it, and to return it to CSS. This is not a practice unique to CSS on this day. CSS has used the same procedure many times before, and this same procedure is followed by other agencies with whom both Luedke and Gage are familiar. Weber fired on October 13, 1982, scoring 142 out of a possible 150. Though no time limit was stipulated for the return of the weapon, it was envisioned by Luedke that it would be returned the day after firing. However, Weber did not return it, and, ten days later the weapon was used to kill Weber. While there is no definite evidence if Weber was murdered or not, there is no doubt that his wife had the gun in her hand, at their home when it went off. This ten-day delay in returning the weapon was not a usual occurrence. However, in this case Weber did not have any weapon-cleaning equipment at home and was going to get it from the office. Because Weber's and Luedke's working hours did not coincide and Luedke repeatedly neglected to leave the appropriate cabinet open for Weber, he could not get the equipment to clean the weapon. The weapon was not issued to Weber to be carried by him in the normal course of his duties. It was issued only for the limited purpose of qualifying in the use of the weapon before a registered instructor. There were no registered instructors on the staff of CSS. When the notice of Weber's death appeared in the local papers, Mr. Rister checked the records of his department and discovered that Weber had applied for a license as an unarmed guard ("D"), but had not actually applied for a license to carry a gun ("G"). As a result, he conducted an investigation, the results of which he forwarded to the Petitioner in Tallahassee. When Ms. Gast, Division Director, reviewed the file, she determined Respondent's action constituted a violation of Sections 493.315 and 493.319(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1981). There are, however, no Department rules establishing standards for firearm qualification in situations such as this. At the hearing, Mr. Rister and Ms. Gast disagreed as to what would constitute proper and lawful procedures for firearm qualification. Mr. Rister concluded that if the properly licensed agency representative were to transport the weapons to the range, issue them there, and collect them after firing for retransport to the agency, no violation would occur. Ms. Gast disagreed, concluding that even such a controlled "issue" of a firearm to an unlicensed employee would constitute a violation. Her solution would be that, as in the case of driver's license testing, the applicant must furnish his own [weapon].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed fines against both Respondents be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Nall, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire 512 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September 1983. The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
