The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
Findings Of Fact Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 3-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 2-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 9-10. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 5-6. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as argument and not a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley Blanding, #036207 Liz Cloud, Chief Mark Dingle, #073356 Bureau of Administrative Code William Roberts, #908378 1802 The Capitol Virgil Page, #073743 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Union Correctional Institution P. O. Box 221 Raiford, Florida 32803 William Joel Keel, #060263 Carroll Webb, Exec. Director Union Correctional Institution Administrative Procedures P. O. Box 221 Committee Raiford, Florida 32083 120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julia Forrester, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 2-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 10 and 11. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 12-14. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certification as a corrections officer be revoked, but that the revocation be suspended and respondent placed on probation for a-period of two years at which time if there is no further evidence of misconduct by the Respondent, the revocation be remitted and the probation terminated. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 22nd day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esq. 233 W. College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since August 10, 1988, certified by the Commission as a correctional officer. He holds certificate number A86-502-07. Respondent has spent his entire career as a correctional officer with the Metro-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (hereinafter referred to as "Metro"). He currently holds the rank of corporal. On June 26, 1989, Respondent was a Correctional Officer I and assigned to the third floor of Metro's Pre-Trial Detention Center, which is also known as the Main Jail. He worked the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift that day. During the eight month period prior to June 26, 1989, Respondent served as the acting supervisor of the third floor of the Main Jail during his shift. June 26, 1989, was Corporal Darlene Beasley's first day as the Main Jail's new third floor supervisor during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. Respondent was one of the officer's under her supervision that day. On June 26, 1989, the third floor of the Main Jail housed approximately 220 inmates in three separate wings, "A" Wing, "B" Wing and "C" Wing. John Breedlove was one of these inmates. Breedlove was 19 years old. His height was approximately five feet, eight inches. His weight was approximately 210 pounds. Breedlove had the privilege of being a trustee. Consequently, his cell was in "B" Wing, which housed all of the trustees on the floor. Trustees are inmates who are given various tasks to perform in and around the Main Jail. They perform these tasks under the supervision of a Labor Supervisor and receive monetary compensation and gain time for their services. As a general rule, trustees are accompanied to and from their work assignments by their Labor Supervisor, who signs them out when he or she takes them from the floor and signs them back in when he or she returns them to the floor. Sometimes, however, a staff member other than a Labor Supervisor will assume the responsibility of escorting trustees to and from their work assignments. Escorting trustees to and from their work assignments lessens the likelihood that they will be successful in any efforts they may make while they are out of their cells to obtain contraband and distribute the contraband to other inmates at the facility. On June 26, 1989, Breedlove was assigned trustee duty in the rear lobby of the Main Jail, which is located on the first floor of the facility. The work was to be performed during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift that day under the supervision of Labor Supervisor Ricardo Gibson. Gibson signed Breedlove out at the beginning of the shift and escorted him to his work assignment on the first floor. Sometime thereafter Breedlove asked Gibson if he could return to the third floor to get a haircut and take care of some laundry. Gibson replied that Breedlove could do so, but only after he had completed his work assignment. Later that day, after he had done some, but not all, of the work he had been assigned, Breedlove encountered Beasley, who was on the first floor to obtain information concerning the whereabouts of certain inmates assigned to her floor. Breedlove told Beasley that he had completed his work assignment and requested that she escort him to the third floor. Beasley complied with Breedlove's request. Respondent had just finished giving the inmates in "A" Wing their dinner meal when he noticed Breedlove sitting on a bench outside the attorney interview rooms located on the third floor. Respondent asked Breedlove what he was doing there. Breedlove responded that he had returned to the floor to get a haircut and to do his laundry. Respondent admonished Breedlove for being on the floor and instructed him to return to his work assignment. Respondent thereupon continued his feeding of the inmates on the floor. After he had delivered to the inmates in "B" Wing their dinner meal, Respondent again saw Breedlove outside the attorney interview rooms. Respondent asked Breedlove what he was still doing there and reminded him that he had been told to return to his work assignment. Gibson then arrived on the scene. He too admonished Breedlove for leaving his work assignment. After Gibson arrived, Respondent continued his feeding of the inmates on the floor. After he finished feeding the inmates in "C" Wing, Respondent observed that, notwithstanding his and Gibson's prior admonishments, Breedlove was still on the floor. Respondent approached Breedlove and asked him why he had not followed his instructions to leave the floor and return to his work assignment. Breedlove's response was that Beasley had brought him back to the floor. Respondent then went to speak about the matter with Beasley, who was doing paperwork in the control booth on the floor. The control booth is a secure enclosed area situated adjacent to the third floor lobby where the elevators are located. It is constructed of concrete, concrete block, one quarter inch thick polished wire glass and steel mesh. Manning the control booth is a Correctional Aide, who from his vantage point in the front of the booth can look through the glass and observe activity that is taking place in the lobby area of the floor as well as on the corridors of all three wings of the floor. Correctional Aide Harold McCartney was manning the control booth during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on June 26, 1989. Beasley was seated at a desk behind McCartney. Respondent walked up to Beasley and asked her if she had brought Breedlove back up to the floor. Beasley indicated that she had. Respondent and Beasley then discussed the matter further. The discussion resulted in Beasley agreeing to take Breedlove back downstairs to the rear lobby to finish his work assignment. She thereupon retrieved Breedlove. She then walked to the elevators on the floor. Breedlove followed behind her. Correctional Aide Gregory McKenzie was also waiting for an elevator to go downstairs. The elevator stopped and McKenzie and Beasley walked on. Just as Breedlove was about to walk on to the elevator, he uttered, in an irritated tone of voice, some profanity. Respondent heard Breedlove. This was the final straw as far as Respondent was concerned. He believed that Breedlove was no longer deserving of the privilege of being a trustee. Respondent therefore told Breedlove that he was "busted." In jail parlance, "busted" means removed from trustee status. Any correctional officer in the Main Jail has the authority to "bust" a trustee. Respondent ordered Breedlove to get off the elevator and to go to his cell to pack his belongings. Breedlove got off the elevator and appeared to be headed in the direction of his cell in "B" Wing when he stopped, turned around and just stared at Respondent. Respondent reacted by repeating his order that Breedlove go to his cell. Breedlove, however, did not move. Respondent then started walking towards Breedlove. Breedlove then turned his back to Respondent and made an obscene remark directed at Respondent. Given Breedlove's defiance, Respondent reasonably felt that he needed to take control of the situation and physically guide Breedlove to his cell. He thus walked up to Breedlove, who was somewhere between two to eight feet from the front of the control booth, and put his hand on Breedlove's shoulder to lead him to his cell. As Respondent grabbed Breedlove by the shoulder, Breedlove suddenly started to pull away. Respondent followed after Breedlove, grabbing him by the back of his pants while trying to maintain the grasp he had on his shoulder. The struggle ended abruptly when Respondent fell on top of Breedlove and they both went to floor. Before hitting the ground, Breedlove struck his face on one of the glass panels of the control booth, breaking the glass as well as the wires inside the glass. Although it may have appeared otherwise to those who witnessed the incident, Respondent did not intentionally push or shove Breedlove into the control booth glass. The only force that Respondent purposely used against Breedlove was that which was reasonably necessary to overcome Breedlove's physical resistance to Respondent's directives that he return to his cell. Breedlove started to bleed profusely after hitting the glass. Blood was streaming down his face and onto to his shirt. Respondent was more fortunate than Breedlove. He did not come in contact with any glass. He was startled by the breaking of the glass, but uninjured. After falling to the ground, he got off of Breedlove and backed away to regain his composure. He stood by as Beasley rushed to Breedlove's aid. Beasley helped Breedlove to his feet and took him to the jail clinic to receive medical assistance. Although Respondent did not offer any assistance, his help was not needed inasmuch as Beasley had the situation under control. Breedlove suffered multiple lacerations on his right cheek as a result of the incident. At the jail clinic, bandages were wrapped around his face to control the bleeding. Because of the nature of the injury, Breedlove was referred to Jackson Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Jackson") for further treatment. At Jackson, Breedlove was seen by a nurse practitioner. A small piece of glass was removed from his right check and he received six stitches. After taking Breedlove to the clinic, Beasley went to the office of the shift commander, Lieutenant Francie D'Erminio, to report what had happened between Respondent and Breedlove. A short time thereafter, Respondent arrived at D'Erminio's office to tell her about the incident. D'Erminio ordered that the matter be investigated. An internal investigation of the incident was conducted. Following the completion of the internal investigation, Respondent was given a 15 day suspension by Metro. Respondent successfully appealed his suspension. He subsequently was promoted to corporal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to prove that Respondent is guilty, as charged, of having failed to maintain "good moral character" in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, and (2) based upon such a finding, dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of August, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Douglas L. Adams is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. On August 26, 1985, he was awakened early in the morning and brought before a disciplinary hearing for an alleged violation of institutional rules and regulations. Prior to the hearing, he was advised by a correctional officer to pack up all his personal property and to bring it with him to the hearing. Mr. Adams took with him as much as he could which included his clothing and other personal effects, but he was unable to carry all he owned with him at one time. He did not ask for either help in carrying his property or a cart to carry it in prior to leaving his cell area to go to the hearing. When he arrived at the movement center where the hearing was to be held, he advised the authorities there that he did not have all his property with him. At that point, he asked for help or the use of a cart to go get the rest of his property but he was refused because no cart was there. As a result, he went to the hearing leaving some of his property in his cell area and while in the hearing, contends he was required to leave his property in the control center. This property was secured in a storage room behind the control center which, while not locked, was not available for access to other inmates unless they were accompanied by a corrections officer. When the hearing was over and Mr. Adams, who had been directed to administrative confinement requested to go back to his former cell area to get the rest of his property, his request was refused. His property was inventoried by UCI personnel at that time, but because in his opinion the inventory was not complete, Mr. Adams refused to sign the form. When he was released from administrative confinement he claims he did not get all his property back. He relates that he was told he had forfeited whatever property he had not brought to the hearing. As a result, he filed a complaint on September 16, 1985, which was subsequently denied. Petitioner has been incarcerated in 7 or 8 institutions within the Department of Corrections including Florida State Prison, River Junction Correctional Institution, Baker Correctional Institution, Polk Correctional Institution, Old Unit, the Reception and Medical Center, and DeSoto Correctional Institution. At each one of these institutions a rule similar to this one was in existence. At Baker Correctional Institution, the inmate was required to bring his mattress as well. Robert Craig has been in prison for a total of 27 years and has been incarcerated in almost every major penal institution in the State of Florida that was built prior to the last five years. At Avon Park Correctional Institution he underwent a disciplinary hearing and was told at the time to bring all his personal property with him to the hearing. While in the hearing, he was required to leave all his property outside in the hall. At Cross City Correctional Institution the guards took him to the hearing without his property, bringing his property along afterwards. In essence, at all the institutions where he was incarcerated, there was some variation of the same procedure regarding his personal property. He either had to bring it to the hearing or it was packed up prior to the hearing. At no institution was his property inventoried prior to the hearing. As a result, he has lost personal property including a calculator for which he was subsequently reimbursed by the institution. According to Mr. Craig, if the inmate does not bring his personal property with him he either is given a deficiency report or is precluded from going back to get it when the hearing is over. Sgt. Denmark has worked for approximately 8 1/2 years with the Department of Corrections, all at UCI, where he formerly worked at the movement center. One of the functions he performed there was to handle prisoners coming for a disciplinary hearing. The rule as explained to him regarding the inmates' personal property is that the inmate is required to bring all of it with him to the hearing. Once the property is brought with the inmate to the hearing, the inmate is free to either take it into the hearing with him or to leave it in the storage room in back of the movement center during the hearing. If the inmate is sentenced to disciplinary confinement as a result of the hearing, in that case, and at that point, the inmate's property is inventoried. If the inmate is not sentenced to disciplinary confinement, the property is returned to the prisoner who is returned to his area. In the instant case, Mr. Denmark heard the Petitioner tell Sgt. Howe, when he arrived at the movement center, that he had left some of his property in his cell. However, when Adams went into his hearing, he neither took his property with him nor requested that it be secured. According to Mr. Cunningham, the Chief Classification Supervisor, the Union Correctional Institution Policy, (85-52.9 B1) requires inmates to bring all their property to disciplinary hearings. It is an old policy, and the reason for it is to protect the property from theft. In a disciplinary hearing, there is a chance that an inmate might not get back to his old cell to retrieve his property after the hearing. For security reasons, institution officials prefer not to take a prisoner back to his old cell after a hearing because, at that point, he is often angry as a result of the hearing and disruptive. All Department of Corrections' institutions in the region incorporating UCI, except Florida State Prison, have a similar policy. Inquiry of corrections personnel at the agency headquarters in Tallahassee reveals that most major DOC facilities have a similar policy. There are a total of 33 other facilities which hold less than 100 inmates each. These smaller institutions do not, generally, have a similar policy and Florida State Prison has a different situation because of the different security problems. It is the needs of the institution, however, which determine the use of the policy. Mr. Cunnningham is aware of Mr. Adams' hearing and the complaint filed as a result thereof. Upon inquiry it was determined that Mr. Adams had failed to establish a loss and the complaint was denied. Mr. Cunningham does not know whether there was an investigation into the loss of the property left in the cell. It is Mr. Cunningham's understanding that if the witness cannot carry all his property at one time, normally, if the inmate asks for permission to do so, he will be allowed to go back and get the balance before the hearing. This is not in the procedure approved by DOC, however, nor in the IOP at UCI. Corrections Officer Howe is also aware of the fact that Mr. Adams had a hearing on August 26, 1985. He, in fact, was called to the movement center to escort several prisoners, including Adams, to the confinement barracks after the hearings. A part of this duty involves inventorying the prisoners property. Howe told Adams to get his property and bring it in for inventory. At this point, after the hearing Adams said he did not have all his property with him and asked to be taken back to his old cell to get the rest. Howe declined to do this and explained the security reasons for his decision to Adams. He did advise Adams, however, that he would call down to Adams' old cell area and have his property packed which, in fact, he did. It is standard practice at UCI, according to Howe, that if an inmate has a large amount of property, he can request the use of a cart or wheelbarrow which is assigned to each housing area for carrying this excess property. This cart will be returned by a runner who can also help carry the excess. To his knowledge, inmates are not denied the use of these carts. Howe declined to return Adams to his old cell area after the hearing because, at the time, Adams was belligerent and unstable and presented a security risk in his opinion and also, because Adams had previously been advised to bring all his property with him and had failed to do this even though there was a way for him to accomplish it.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are inmates presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a prison facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. The superintendent of Polk Correctional Institution issued a directive, which is dated February 18, 1982, and entitled "Interoffice Memorandum". The memorandum is directed to all inmates and relates to visiting procedures. It provides: Effective Saturday, March 6, 1982, inmates will no longer be permitted to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week. Visiting policy in the past has permitted inmates to receive visits on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week, but not from the same visitor. This change means that you must receive all your visitors on either Saturday or Sunday. If your (sic) receive a visit on Saturday, you will not be permitted to receive another visit on Sunday. This change in visiting procedure will help alleviate the overcrowded situation in the visitor's park and allow you and your family to visit together more comfortably. The memorandum applies only within Polk Correctional Institution. It was issued by the superintendent without any effort being made to promulgate it as a rule. No effort was made to publish notice, to give affected persons an opportunity to be heard, nor to conduct hearings and allow input from members of the public. The superintendent did not construe the memorandum as being a rule. He considered it authorized under the provisions of Section 945.21, Florida Statutes; Department of Corrections Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code; and Department of Corrections "Policy and Procedure Directive" Number 3.04.12, which was issued April 8, 1981. Rule 33-5.01 provides: The Secretary shall authorize each Superintendent to adopt policies stating the conditions and circumstances under which visits may be conducted including: the regular visiting hours of the insti- tution; the items which visitors may take in or out of an institution, and what items are contraband; what persons or groups may visit, and in what numbers; and the specific standards of conduct which shall prevail during such visits. All visiting policies promulgated by the Superintendents shall be subject to approval by the Secretary. Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 provides at Paragraph V.A. 1: Visiting days shall normally be designated as Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Where unusual circum- stances occur, additional days may be designated for visiting. Institutions are authorized to restrict visiting to one of these days; or when facilities permit, visiting may be permitted more than one day. The directive provides at Paragraph V.B.: There is no limit on the number of individuals that may visit an inmate on any particular visiting day other than those restrictions imposed regarding limited space at each institution. Each institution is authorized to place a limitation when physical facilities are restrictive. However, reasonableness should be exercised when possible in regard to the number of visitors that would be permitted. Those institutions restricting visits to either Saturday or Sunday, but not both, may permit special exception in the case of those individuals that have traveled a significant dis- tance, especially when such visits are on an infrequent basis. This policy directive has not been promulgated as a rule. It is not published in the Florida Administrative Code, does not bear a numerical designation that accords with rules of the Department of State, and appears to have been adopted on authority of Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.02(), 33-3.06, and 33-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of these rules sets out visiting conditions with the specificity found in the policy and procedure directive. Prior to the March 6, 1982 effective date of the Superintendent's memorandum, which is the basis for this proceeding, inmates at Polk Correctional Institution were allowed to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday. This prior policy was based upon memoranda that had been issued by the superintendent in the same manner as the February 18, 1982 memorandum.
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Douglas Lavern Adams, Edwin Paul, Stanley Blanding, Carl B. Cribbs, Efron Yero, and James M. Cook are all incarcerated in the State of Florida at Respondent's facility, the Union Correctional Institution located at Raiford, Florida. On November 15, 1984, the Department of Corrections forwarded to the Bureau of the Administrative Code for publishing in the next available issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, its proposed Rule 33-5. The proposed rule in question was published in Volume 10, No. 46 on November 21, 1984. The stated purpose and effect of the proposed rule was to clarify and revise policies and procedures relating to visitation with inmates. The proposed rule purported to make certain changes to pre-existing Rule 33-5 as outlined in the proposal which, among other things, allowed superintendents to make exceptions to any provision of this rule on an individual case by case basis, based on the best interests of the inmate, the security and welfare of the department, or both with the qualification that the exception could not be more restrictive than the provisions of the rules and with the further requirement that all visiting policies promulgated by the superintendent shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of the department. Petitioners contend that the proposed changes severely limit their prior existing visiting rights. Specifically, Petitioners' contentions include: Rule 33-5.01 is without legislative authority in that the Secretary has no authority from the legislature to delegate policy making authority to superintendents; Rule 33-5.04 is an invalid rule for the same reason and because it deprives hospital inmates of family visits in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without a valid penological objective, and in violation of both equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions and is fatally vague and invalid in that by stating, "any other special status" it fails to specify what status prisoners will be prohibited from visitation; Rule 33-5.07(5) constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority to an employee; Rule 33-5.08(2) is arbitrary, capricious, and without any known penological objective, constitutes an abuse of discretion, and is unreasonable in that it is without a rational basis for the potential reduction of visiting days; Rule 33-5.08(3) is discriminatory on its face, is fatally vague, and insufficient in specificity to inform Petitioners what circumstances will be considered; Rule 33-5.08(4) is without a rational basis in fact and is fatally vague; Rule 33-5.10(c) is an unconstitutional rule in that by authorizing unwarranted searches and invasions of privacy of visitors, this would discourage visitation and thereby deprive Petitioners of visits; Rule 33-5.08(12)(c) is fatally vague and overbroad and discriminates against female visitors in an arbitrary and capricious manner by permitting their exclusion if they are "not appropriately clothed or are dressed in revealing attire . . . and other like attire"; Rule 33-5.08(14) and (15) constitute an abuse of discretion and are discriminatory in an arbitrary and capricious manner in that they refer without defining or explaining "security" reasons for allowing non-contact visits; (j) Rule 33-5.04 and 33-5.08(2) render the proposed rule ambiguous and vague because prisoners will not be able to ascertain if they are entitled to visits and the rules cannot be uniformly applied on a just and rational basis; (k) that Respondent has failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed rule to those inmates in administrative, disciplinary, and close management status. The proposed changes to the rules came about after Respondent conducted a survey of the existing visitation policies of all institutions within its system. This review indicated a need for a statewide set of standards for visitations while at the same time allowing the superintendents of the various institutions the flexibility to tailor standards at the individual institutions to local needs and the special needs of the inmates. The survey showed a need for some flexibility within the rules to accommodate the uniqueness of the individual facilities and the special needs inherent therein while at the same time addressing the overall needs constant throughout the system such as security, inmate health and welfare, and safety of both staff and inmate population. Primary among the concerns considered by the Department was the security aspect. The need to control contraband and to maintain order and discipline within the confines of any given facility is obvious. Without question a valid concern of the staff is the ability to control who and what goes into the facility. The superintendent has the inherent power to interdict the introduction of drugs, alcohol, weapons and similar contraband into a facility. He or she also has the responsibility to insure against the potential for disturbance caused by obviously inappropriate clothing worn by staff visitors to a sexually segregated institution. James M. Cook is an inmate at the Union Correctional Institution who has received special visits of the type to be governed under proposed Rule 33- 5.04 in the past. On those occasions he had to establish for his proposed visitor the classification the visitor would fall under, such as distance from the facility travel led or other criteria. In his opinion the proposed rule is somewhat vague. He contends it does not give specifics as to mileage, clothing to be worn, etc., in detail adequate for the proposed visitor to know what is required. He understands from a conversation with his classification officer that the distance requirement to be applied under the new rule is 400 miles but this criteria is not specifically stated in the proposed rule nor can it be determined from reading the rule. As to female visitors, he contends that that portion of the proposed rule which provides for appropriate clothing is insufficient in detail to insure the visitors will be properly dressed for the visit. It has been his experience in the past that if a female visitor is improperly dressed, as determined by the institution's personnel, the guards require her to wear a shapeless smock. Under the terms of the new rule, Cook said, he is required to inform his visitor what can and cannot be worn, but because the rule is devoid of detail, it is difficult for him to do this. Proposed Rule 33-5.06(3) does not, as Cook asserts, require the inmate to inform the visitor in detail of the particulars of the visiting program only the basics, such as hours, days, and, to be sure, the need for non-provocative apparel. The question on the distance requirements for special visits is also of concern to inmate Cribbs whose mother lives in Tampa, a 350 mile round trip from this facility. Cribbs contends the proposed-rule has no specifics in it as to mileage for special visitors. In the past, his mother, coming from Tampa, has been able to visit on both Saturday and Sunday and because of the distance, has made a two day visit out of the trip. The new rule, according to Cribbs, leaves everything up to the superintendent regarding visiting privileges and depending upon the determination of that officer, his mother may be forced to come this long distance to see him only on one day of the weekend. Under the current policy, inmates are allowed visitors on both Saturday and Sunday and the new rule, he feels, will change this benefit to allow visits normally only once per weekend. Cribbs is also concerned about the dress requirements of the new rule. He is concerned with the term "like attire" which he feels makes it difficult for him to tell his female visitors what to wear. Petitioner, Stanley Blending, has also had visitors on both days of the weekend in the past. He had a need for this benefit because his grandmother came from Canada for a visit once a year and, in addition, his son comes up to visit from time to time and the two day visit is required for him to talk with the young man regarding family problems. At UCI he currently gets two days of visits and, in his opinion, these two day visits have had a beneficial, rehabilitative effect. As in the case of Cribbs, Blanding's family comes from Tampa and that distance makes it necessary for them to have a two day visit. He is concerned and believes that the proposed rule will limit visits to one day per weekend which, in his opinion, would severely limit the amount of visitation he would receive. He is also concerned, about the proposed rule regarding appropriate dress for female visitors. The proposed rule says nothing about the institution providing a smock for inappropriately dressed females as has been done in the past. Combining the two changes, if his visits were reduced to one day or his female visitors were barred because of "improper" clothing, either situation would have an adverse effect on him. The current rule does not provide what is appropriate clothing and under the terms of the new rule, he would have a difficult time explaining to his female visitors what "appropriate" clothing is. Inmate Yero was in disciplinary confinement in December, 1984 and then placed under investigation. While he was in that status from October 26, 1984 through early January, 1985, he did not get to see nor did he ever receive notice of the proposed rule. Prior to October, 1984, he was allowed visitors from one to two hours. This was the rule for prisoner in disciplinary confinement. The new rule would allow the superintendent to restrict visitors to prisoners in Yero's status. The new rule adds the word "infirmaries" to the list of special status inmates. He signed the Petition herein with only limited knowledge of its contents. Inmate Paul is presently a hospital inmate and has been intermittently since 1982. He is housed in the hospital because of a disability which confines him to a wheel chair not because of any contagious or infectious disease. He understands the new rule to state that since he is in the hospital, he could be denied visitors even though he is not a patient but a special housing prisoner who is considered to be a regular inmate. He was advised that when his sister from New York called to arrange a visit with him, she was told that because he was in the hospital, he could have only a one hour visit with her. The new rule could prohibit him from having visitors at all, he says, and leaves too much discretion with the superintendent. The one hour rule which applies to inmates in the hospital has had an adverse effect on him since he has been deprived of visits from his sister. He and his sister are orphans, he says, who have just been recently reunited after a long separation. He contends that the new rule puts too much control in the hands of the superintendent. It is too vague and gives the superintendent authorization to make decisions which he should not have. The propriety of placing control, the right to make decisions, and discretion in the hands of the superintendent is clear. Without question, the superintendent is the individual most qualified to make those decisions and to exercise those functions. Adams' mother is old. Because of this and because she cannot walk far, the past changes in parking and entry procedures have cut down on her visits to him. Because of this, he is not likely to be affected by the potential for a change to one day visits. However, as to the dress rule, he would have difficulty in telling his family what they could or could not wear based on the descriptions or lack thereof in the proposed rule. During the four years he has been in confinement, he has found it difficult to know or determine who is going to do what at any given time. His mother has told him that she would like to visit him but doesn't want to go through all the difficulties she has to encounter when she does visit. She states to him that the metal in her bra sets off the metal detector utilized to screen visitors and as a result, she wears a tank top on her visits which would be prohibited by the new rules. He considers this to be deleterious to him and his welfare and he contends that the new rule will destroy any uniformity among the 79 or so different facilities within the DOC. There is no evidence that the sole alternative to a metal braced bra is a tank top. Numerous other modes of dress are available to women of all ages, sizes, and shapes. According to Harry Singletary, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Corrections, the Department is presently reviewing all rules and policy and procedure directives in an effort to do away with the latter and make all controlling directives for the Department in the form of Rules. The intent is to promulgate standards for statewide application to meet the needs of the families of the inmates, the inmates, and the institutions. Mr. Singletary contends that the majority of changes set out in the proposed rules make them more liberal for the inmate or increase security for the institution. Both of these goals are worthy and supportable. It was the intent of the drafters of the rule to standardize procedures so that visitation would be made easier and safer and to increase uniformity among the institutions so that prisoners moving from one institution to another could know what to expect. It is the Department's position that a rule should not create surprises for the inmates and should liberalize and simplify procedures for them as much as possible. As to proposed Rule 33-5.01, the reason for the new language was to give the Superintendent the discretion to provide more visitation for the inmates and their families and to deal with special needs of the inmates or the institution. The change here is to liberalize - not penalize. The terms of the proposed rule provide that Superintendents' interpretations cannot be more strict than the terms of the rule and it in essence legitimizes superintendents being more liberal than the rule calls for. Based on the population and size of the UCI visitor park, notwithstanding the concerns of Mr. Adams that the Legislature and recent court decisions will have the effect of significantly reducing the population at UCI, there should he no change in visitor policy as it exists now at this institution. As a matter of fact, if the population decreases, there would be less pressure or reason to reduce the visit days for each inmate to make more time available for others. The fact that some language is less than specific (i.e., 6 hours instead of 9 am to 3 pm) reflects an intention on the part of the drafters to give the superintendent latitude to tailor local policy to the needs of the inmates and his institution. It is recognized that there may be some abuses by superintendents, but if this should occur, it would be the exception rather than the rule and there are adequate remedies existing in the DOC rules through grievance procedures to rectify any such abuse. With regard to proposed Rule 33-5.04, dealing with special status inmates, the change here proposed adds only the word "infirmaries." The existing rule was changed only to describe all types of facilities. The rule originally was designed to prevent the spread of disease incident to the closeness of prison populations. However, it is Mr. Singletary's confirmed opinion that ambulatory or non-infectious patient- inmates, such as Mr. Paul, one of the Petitioners here, would be allowed visitors in the visitor park the same as any other inmate, on regular hours. Proposed Rule 33-5.07(5) is a new offering which gives the Superintendent authority to act to promote discipline but provides adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(3) is also new and it gives the inmates the opportunity to tell the superintendent what they need and provides for extra visiting time when justified. It also gives specific factors that inmates are to use to justify extra visiting time. It was intended to promote uniformity. Proposed Rule 33-5.08(10) dealing with searches, is designed to provide for a method to prevent the introduction of contraband into the institution. It is for the security of the institution and if reasonable, should provide no problems. There are presently no dress codes applicable to visitors coming into UCI or any other institution. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(1)(c) applies to both men and women and is based on the need for security in the institution. The intent of the agency was to limit the opportunity for rude, suggestive, or untoward comments by inmates which could give offense to the resident inmate relative of the visitor to whom the comments are directed and which could incite fights or other violence. Proposed Rules 33-5.08(14) and (15) both exist in the present rule. Subparagraph 14 deals with people in protective custody and death row inmates as well as violent inmates. Subparagraph 15 deals with those instances where contact visits might jeopardize security. Those inmates in normal status would not be separated. The rules are based on the need to maintain security and prevent the passing of weapons, the spread of disease, or inappropriate conduct as is periodically demonstrated by inmates and visitors. The machinery designed by the agency to deal with those instances envisioned by the rule where a Superintendent of a particular institution might want to impose a standard stricter than that encompassed in the rule, requires that superintendent to submit his proposal to the Secretary of DOC along with justification and documentation indicating a need for a stricter standard. It is also envisioned that prisoners requesting a transfer from one institution to another write in advance to the new institution to get the local policy regarding a particular area or, wait to be briefed as to local policy during the incoming orientation on arrival. Just as the institutional superintendent must justify imposing a stricter standard than called for in the rule, it is, as well, the responsibility of the inmate who request extra visiting time, to present factors justifying the extension, the grant or denial of which is within the prerogative of the superintendent. Admittedly, while the rule does not define specific criteria for the superintendent to use in making his decision, it will be based on the reasonableness of the request and the sufficiency of the reasons submitted by the inmate. In short, the inmate must make his case and is not limited as to the factors he may use to show the need for extra time or for the change in location. The decision is within the discretion of the superintendent and is similar to other areas such as release, privileges, and the like in which the superintendent has been held capable of legitimately utilizing his discretion.
