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 At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioners have "standing" to challenge the rules and the policy and procedure directives which are the subject of this proceeding. At the time the petition in this cause was filed, Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 33-3.081, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed as of its latest revision on May 22, 1981. However, subsequent to the filing of the petition in this cause, and prior to the date of final hearing, Respondent amended Rule 33-3.081, and filed these amendments with the office of the Secretary of State on June 23, 1983. At final hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated to the Petitioners maintaining a challenge to newly amended Rule 33-3.081(4), (5), and (9)(a) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 1979, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.11, which was subsequently revised on June 14, 1981. This directive contains 13 separately titled sections. The first section, entitled Authority, simply lists the authority, both statutory and rule-based, for issuance of the directive. Section three contains definitions which, with a single exception not relevant here, are identical to those contained in Rule 33-3.081(2). Sections four through thirteen likewise recapitulate provisions contained in Respondent's rules or in relevant statutes. The following is a list of titles of sections four through thirteen, each of which is followed with a parenthetical reference of the rule provision substantially incorporated therein: Staff Selection (33- 3.081(10)); Basis for Placement (33-3.081(1)); Placement (33-3.081(4)); Protection Cases (33-3.082); Visiting (33-3.081 (5)); Gain Time (33-11.11 and Section 944.28, Florida Statutes); Review of Administrative Confinement (33- 3.081(6)); Self-Improvement Programs (33-081(7)); Facilities (33-3.081(8)); General Provisions (33-3.081(9)(a)-(k)). Sections 13(l) and (m) of the policy and procedure directive essentially reiterate the provisions of Rule 33-3.081(6) and 33-3.081 (11) , respectively. On or about June 14, 1981, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.20, entitled "Discipline." This directive which purportedly issued pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 944.09, 944.14, 944.15, 944.28 and 945.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-3.08, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, each of the 20 separately numbered portions of this directive substantially recapitulate requirements already contained in Rule 33-3.08, Florida Administrative Code. The single exception is Section 7 of the directive, entitled Administrative Confinement, which finds its support in Rule 33-3.081. Neither Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.11 nor Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.20 purport to create or otherwise adversely affect rights of inmates in any manner which differs from corresponding provisions of Rules 33- 3.081, 33-3.08 or the provisions of the Florida Statutes cited as authority for issuance of the policy and procedure directive. Rather, the rights of inmates are specifically determinable pursuant to those cited statutory provisions and the requirements of Rules 33-3.081 and 33-3.08, and the challenged policy and procedure directives simply recapitulate the requirements contained therein.
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. In his original petition the Petitioner sought to challenge several rules of the Department, as well as certain Department policy and procedure directives and internal operating procedures of Florida State Prison. At the hearing the scope of the issues was narrowed by agreement of the Petitioner to challenges to the following: Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code; Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directives 4.07.06 and 4.10.51; and Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedure No. 4-86.04.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony at the final hearing and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Ervin J. Horton, is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is presently confined at Florida State Prison. At the time of the hearing in this case, the Petitioner was on confinement status and he has been on confinement status in the past. Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, has been adopted by the Department of Corrections. The title of the rule is "Legal Documents and Legal and Privileged Mail." The general subject matter of the rule concerns the preparation, mailing, and receipt of legal documents and legal mail by inmates. The rule is applicable to the Petitioner. The Department of Corrections has adopted Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06, which is titled "Preparation And Processing Of Legal Documents And Legal Mail." This directive is for the most part a restatement of many of the provisions of Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. The directive also includes a provision requiring each prison Superintendent to issue an institutional policy memorandum to effectuate the provisions of the directive. The Department of Corrections has adopted Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.10.51, which is titled "Law Libraries." The directive is in part a restatement of portions of Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. However, for the most part it sets forth the Department's policies regarding the establishment, operation, and maintenance of prison law libraries. Portions of the directive contain limitations on the time, place, and manner in which inmates may use the law libraries. The Superintendent of Florida State Prison has adopted Institutional Operating Procedure No. 4-86.04, which is titled "Preparation Of Legal Documents By Inmates." This is an institutional policy memorandum required by Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06. IOP No. 4-86.04 addresses the same general subject matter as is addressed by Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06. The IOP includes additional specific details for implementation of Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06 and Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, at the Florida State Prison facility. As a result of his status as an inmate at Florida State Prison, the Rule, the Policy And Procedure Directives, and the Institutional Operating Procedure described above are applicable to the Petitioner to the extent they regulate his activities within the scope of those documents. The documents described above in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of these findings of fact are the only documents to which this rule challenge proceeding is addressed. The testimony at the hearing consisted largely of anecdotal testimony regarding a long series of Petitioner's alleged individual problems within the State correctional system. Some of his problems have been real; others appear to probably have been imaginary. All of the problems described by Petitioner were largely irrelevant to the issues raised in the petition. And to the extent portions of Petitioner's testimony were relevant to the general subject matter at hand, the testimony did not tend to demonstrate that the challenged documents were invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The exhibits offered by Petitioner were of the same general tenor as his testimony.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Corrections' Emergency Rule 33ER83-3 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons contained in petitioner's Petition for Determination of Validity of Emergency Rule, dated November 21, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1983, the Department filed and adopted Emergency Rule 33ER83-3, which provides: Shaving. All male inmates in the custody of the Department shall be clean shaven. An exemption from this requirement may be granted on medical grounds if it is determined by qualified medical staff that shaving would be detrimental to the inmate's health. In such cases the inmate may be required to keep his facial hair closely trimmed with scissors or clippers. In the December 2, 1983, Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 9., No. 48, the Department stated its reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare, justifying adoption of the emergency rule: The Department's rule requiring inmates to be clean shaven has recently been held invalid because of a failure to include provision for medical exemptions. If inmates were able to grow beards, mustaches and other facial hair it would seriously interfere with the identification of inmates by staff. To maintain institutional security and order it is essential that staff members be able to identify inmates easily. The emergency rule, by its terms, requires all male inmates in the Department's custody to be clean shaven, but authorizes a medical exemption. The rule applies to petitioner Adams because he is a male inmate in the Department's custody who grows facial hair. These facts are inferences which arise from the following: The hearing was held in guarded quarters at Baker Correctional Institution; Mr. Adams was obviously a male; and he wore a uniform identical to that worn by two inmates who testified. The clean-shaven rule is strictly enforced by the Department. One enforcement checkpoint is the inmate dining hall. Inmates with facial hair, and without no-shaving passes (proof of medical exemption) are required to shave their facial hair prior to eating. Food is not withheld, however, if they promise to shave immediately after eating. (Testimony of McGuire) There are sound reasons which justify the adoption of the rule on an emergency basis. If inmates were allowed to grow facial hair, such as beards and mustaches, the Department's ability to quickly and accurately identify them would be seriously impaired. Inmates with facial hair could easily and quickly alter their appearance by shaving. This would make it more difficult to identify inmates who commit crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault within the correctional institutions. For the same reasons, it would be more difficult to identify and apprehend inmates who successfully escape because the picture distributed to law enforcement agencies would depict inmates only in their clean-shaven condition. (Testimony of Townsend) The extent to which facial hair changes a person's appearance is illustrated by the recent experience of John Townsend, Assistant Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution. During a two-week vacation in August 1983, he grew a mustache. On his return, he toured the correctional institution without being recognized by correctional officers. Two officers required him to show identification. (Testimony of Townsend) There is a bona fide infectious condition known as Pseudo Folliculitis Barbae ("PFB") which occasionally afflicts male inmates. In its acute form, it infects an inmate's face causing symptoms such as sores, puss, and bumps. Medical treatment consists of applying an antihistamine facial cream such as Caladryl, and authorizing the inmate to forgo close shaving for approximately two weeks. In lieu of shaving, whiskers are cut with scissors or clippers; this allows facial hair to grow to a length of 1-2 millimeters. PFB symptoms vary, and actual medical treatment must be decided on an individual basis. Some conditions may require only facial cream, others may require no-shaving passes for periods shorter or longer than two weeks. (Testimony of Di-Huyen Luu, M.D.)
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not Union Correctional Institution's Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.11 is a rule not promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and therefore is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. Petitioner is a black male affected by pseudofolliculitis barbae or "PFB," a skin condition caused by ingrown facial hairs which manifests itself in lesions and irritation in affected areas. The best treatment for "PFB" is to refrain from shaving in the affected areas and allowing the facial hair to grow. Petitioner has allowed his facial hair to grow and does not at the present time shave. If an inmate chose, or for some reason was required to shave and irritation developed, medicinal preparations available at the institution's infirmary could be administered to alleviate the irritation. Further, should an infection or other serious medical problem develop as a result of the shave, arrangements would be made for such an inmate to see a dermatologist at the Lake Butler Institution's infirmary. Alcohol, although a drying agent, would further irritate the affected area. (Testimony of Dr. Julius Avilez, general practitioner employed at Union Correctional Institution's infirmary) On February 26, 1981, Respondent issued Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.11, Inmate Package Permit. The directive indicated that items containing alcohol would not be accepted in packages received by inmates at all institutions and community facilities within the Department of Corrections. Subsequent to the issuance of the above directive, the Petitioner, on February 3, 1984, had several items confiscated from an approved package by Officer K. E. Scates, a Property Room Officer at the institution. Two plastic containers of splash-on aftershave cologne, trade name "Brut" with S and D alcohol content, were confiscated and are presently being held in the institution's Property Room as property of the State. The aftershave lotion was confiscated by the institution authorities pursuant to the above directive and the Petitioner was notified that the substance would be forfeited unless arrangements were made for return of the substance to either its source or Petitioner's family.
Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications required of a correctional officer by failing to maintain good moral character, to wit, unlawfully and knowingly aiding and abetting an inmate confined at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution to attempt to escape from such confinement on or about September 23, 1987, 1/ and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mary A. Jackson, was trained and employed as a police officer by the Valdosta Georgia Police Department, a position she held from 1979 to 1985. Respondent relocated from Georgia to Florida during 1986. Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) on June 16, 1986 and was issued certificate number 41-86-502-03. During times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a correctional officer and was assigned to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution (ZCI). During September 1987, Robert Bridges and Charles Jeffrey were inmates incarcerated at ZCI residing in the "E dormitory". On approximately September 12, inmates Bridges and Jeffrey began discussing plans for an escape from ZCI. Their initial plan was to meet in the prison chapel and change out of their prison uniforms into street clothing which Respondent would provide. They would then mingle with prison visitors and exit the gate posing as visitors. This was to be done at a time when Respondent was in control of gate access. Inmate Bridges observed a personal relationship between inmate Jeffrey and Respondent during September 1987. This was evidenced by Respondent's visits with Jeffrey in the dorm for unusually long periods of time and their utilization of a method of communication by flashing lights at one another. Also during this period, inmate Bridges observed Jeffrey with a photo of Respondent dressed in a bikini bathing suit. Bridges and Jeffrey's initial plan was scuttled and they in turn agreed on a second escape plan whereby Respondent would provide them with a key to an exit door of "E" dorm. This door was nearest the fence and their plan was to exit the door under cover of darkness and scale the fences at a time when Respondent would be the only guard on that portion of the fence. Respondent and Bridges discussed this plan although Respondent expressed apprehension about going through with it. On September 22, inmate Bridges observed inmate Jeffrey and Respondent tossing an object back and forth to one another across a fence. Respondent stood outside the fence and Jeffrey stood inside the compound during this exchange. Bridges and Respondent also openly flirted with each other. For those reasons, Bridges felt that this behavior compromised the secrecy of the escape plan and he decided to back out. Although Bridges initially intended to attempt to escape with Jeffrey, he abandoned the plan and instead informed ZCI's authorities. Bridges was convinced that the escape would fail, resulting in the possibility of additional prison time beyond that which he was already serving. Bridges was also apprehensive that if he failed to report the plan and merely declined to participate, inmate Jeffrey would unsuccessfully attempt the escape and when it failed, Jeffrey would implicate him as a co-conspirator and he would suffer identical consequences for not divulging the plan to ZCI's security staff. On September 23, inmate Bridges requested a meeting with Lt. Wayne Hutto, an investigator at ZCI. Bridges first discussed the escape plans with Lt. Hutto and he thereafter reported the same information to Major Sammy Hill, head of security at ZCI. After discussing the escape plan with Hill and Hutto, they instructed inmate Bridges to go forward with the plan and to accept any keys given him by Respondent. Inmate Bridges was also instructed to give a prearranged signal when he received the key whereupon a correctional staff member would confiscate it. Inmate Bridges concealed his cooperation with ZCI authorities from inmate Jeffrey and the Respondent. During the evening of September 23, inmate Jeffrey reported to the prison chapel where he was assigned as chapel clerk. Jeffrey met Bridges in the chapel's office. On that day, Respondent reported to duty and was assigned to work in the institution's gatehouse control room with Sgt. Rhodene Mathis, the control room supervisor. Throughout the evening on September 23, Respondent appeared nervous and she was preoccupied with matters other than her work. As example, Sgt. Mathis assigned her to type some forms. Mathis examined the forms at a time when they should have been completed and discovered that Respondent had not started her assignment. Respondent telephoned the chapel from the control room approximately three times between her arrival at 4:00 p.m. and 7:25 p.m. On each of these occasions, Bridges would answer. Respondent in each case, asked Bridges to speak with "Nikki" whereupon Bridges gave the phone to Jeffrey. During one of the phone calls, Sgt. Mathis was out of the control room. When she returned, Respondent abruptly ended the call to Jeffrey. During one of the calls, Jeffrey told Respondent that he wanted the key and to let him and Bridges know when Sgt. Mathis was gone so that Bridges could come over and get the key from her. Sgt. Mathis departed the control room leaving Respondent alone at approximately 7:25 p.m. Her stated purpose in leaving at this time was to check on inmates in the institution's fire station. Upon her departure, Respondent immediately called the chapel and informed Bridges and Jeffrey that she was alone. Inmate Bridges walked to gatehouse from the chapel and Respondent, contrary to normal practice, released the remote gate lock mechanism and admitted inmate Bridges into the gatehouse without him asking, in advance, to declare his business in the gatehouse. Once inside the gatehouse, inmate Bridges made his way to the area immediately outside the control room. Once Respondent observed inmate Bridges from her position inside the control room, she looked to see if anyone was watching her. Respondent wrapped a key in a paper napkin and passed it to inmate Bridges through a security drawer. The key, identified as RE141-307, was the key which had been stored in a lock box in "E" dormitory. It would open the rear exit door of "E" dormitory and would assist inmates Bridges and Jeffrey in making a night escape over the fence behind "E" dormitory. This was a key which ordinarily an inmate of ZCI would be unable to obtain. As a correctional officer, Respondent had access to the key. Bridges took the key that Respondent wrapped in the napkin, placed it in his pocket and exited the gatehouse. Once outside, inmate Bridges gave a prearranged signal to Sgt. Levy Roberts, who had been designated to assist in aborting the plan by Major Hill and Lt. Hutto. Upon seeing the signal, Sgt. Roberts approached inmate Bridges and retrieved the key and napkin from Bridges. Sgt. Roberts handcuffed inmate Bridges and led him to "E" dormitory. Soon thereafter, Respondent learned that inmate Bridges had been intercepted by Sgt. Roberts. Upon learning of Bridges' interception, Respondent exhibited an unusual amount of curiosity as to the nature of Bridges interception. Respondent called a fellow officer and requested permission to leave her post to ascertain why Bridges was being held by Sgt. Roberts. This was an extraordinary request under the circumstances. Respondent's concern was her complicity in the escape plan. As agreed, Sgt. Roberts immediately telephoned Major Hill and Lt. Hutto and advised them that he had retreived the key from Bridges. Thereafter, Sgt. Roberts approached the gatehouse and signaled to Sgt. Mathis that he had recovered the key. Respondent, who was still in the gatehouse, immediately asked Sgt. Mathis for permission to leave her duty station. Later during the evening of September 23, Respondent was questioned by Major Hill and Lt. Hutto. Respondent provided a statement voluntarily without any promises, threats or coercion from either Hill or Hutto. During her statement, Respondent initially denied any involvement with Jeffrey or giving Bridges a key. However, later during her statement Respondent admitted giving Jeffrey the number of a pay phone located near her home and to receiving at least two personal calls from Jeffrey at the pay phone. Respondent admitted to accepting a collect call from Jeffrey on her home phone and she paid the tolls for the two calls which were made from Jeffrey to her at a pay station near her home. Also, Respondent admitted having previously discussed a plan for inmates Jeffrey and Bridges to escape involving the key to exit from "E" dormitory. Respondent ultimately admitted allowing Bridges to take a key from a ring located in the pass-through drawer in the guardhouse control room. At approximately 11:00 on September 23, Respondent returned to the gatehouse control room whereupon Sgt. Mathis asked her what she had done. Respondent replied that she had "really screwed up" and began crying. Upon further inquiry by Sgt. Mathis, Respondent told her that she had given Bridges a key because her safety and that of her children had been threatened by the inmates at ZCI. Although Respondent had confided in Sgt. Mathis of some personal problems prior to that time, she did not previously discuss any threats to Sgt. Mathis. On September 25, Tony Perez, a Department of Corrections prison inspector, interviewed Respondent. Respondent was advised of her constitutional rights under the Miranda decision and she agreed to answer questions voluntarily. Inspector Perez did not make any promises nor did he threaten or coerce Respondent to provide him a statement. During the early stages of the interview, Respondent related that she had three children, was divorced and that inmate Jeffrey asked her to assist him in escaping from ZCI such that he could accompany her to the Bahamas. During that statement, Respondent claims that she told inmate Jeffrey that she would not help him escape and that he could "get out on [his] own." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 9.) Respondent admitted giving inmate Jeffrey the number of a pay telephone, thereafter receiving calls from him and discussing his aspirations to escape from ZCI. During Perez' interview of Respondent, she admitted that inmate Jeffrey asked her to get a "main key" and provide it to him. She also related other escape plans that she and inmate Jeffrey discussed. Respondent related receiving telephone calls from Jeffrey while he was assigned to work in the institution's chapel. Respondent also described giving inmate Bridges a napkin at the time she gave him a key from the sliding security pass-through drawer of the control room. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, pages 23-25.) Although Respondent initially maintained that if inmate Bridges took a key away from the control room, this was done without her knowledge, she finally conceded that she knew Bridges had taken a key, but insisted that it was a key from one that she randomly selected and removed from ring number 4. A subsequent audit of ring 4 disclosed no missing keys. Respondent also admitted that she phoned a fellow inmate about inmate Bridges interception by Sgt. Roberts. At the conclusion of the Respondent's interview with inspector Perez, she resigned her position as a correctional officer at ZCI. During her resignation, Respondent told Major Hill that she had made a big mistake and had ruined her career. Respondent cried uncontrollably and threatened suicide. She ultimately regained her composure and left the institution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's law enforcement certificate number 41-86-502-03. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 27th day of March, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), should revoke Respondent's correctional officer certificate on charges that he is not of good moral character because he committed a third degree felony by introducing contraband onto the grounds of the Hillsborough County Correctional Institution (HCI) in violation of section 944.47(1)(a), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ray D. Jones, was certified by the Commission on October 7, 2003, and holds Correctional Certificate 235065. He was employed as a DOC correctional officer from February 26, 2003, until June 22, 2011. Before this matter arose, Respondent had not been disciplined by the Commission. In early 2010, Respondent was working at HCI and assigned to supervise one of two squads of inmates working outside the prison for the Hillsborough County (County) public works department. On work days, County employees would drive the County vans from a County transportation facility to the prison, drive onto prison property and down the prison's entry road, and stop at a gate in the prison's perimeter fence. There, the work squads leave HCI by passing through the gate and boarding the vans. Respondent would sit in the passenger seat in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, and the inmates would sit in the back of the van. There was a partition between the cab and the back of the van. When the vans returned to the prison at the end of the work day, the supervisors and inmates would unload outside the gate, and the vans would leave the prison. On January 4, 2011, an HCI inmate request was submitted that alleged improprieties regarding the work squads. As part of the investigation of those allegations, the County vans were inspected upon arrival at HCI on the morning of January 10, 2011. Numerous hats, some tools, duct tape, toys, food containers, purses, money, glasses, sunglasses, and other similar items were found on both vans. These items were considered to be "nuisance contraband." In addition, some scissors and three folding knives were recovered. One of the folding knives was in a cup holder in the cab of the van assigned to Respondent's squad. The other two were found in an insulated lunch bag in the cab of the van. Those two knives had blades that were sharp, pointed, and about two and a half to three inches long. The other folding knife was similar. The knives were not authorized by the appropriate prison official for use as tools. The Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was candy on the van when it was inspected. At one point, on cross examination by Respondent, Inspector Talbot testified that there was a lunch box full of candy on the van. However, when Respondent questioned him further on the premise that Respondent carried his lunch with him and that he had not passed through the gate at the time of the inspection, Inspector Talbot stated he did not recall whether "there was actually food in there, maybe one of the other inspectors will recall." No other inspector testified. Upon questioning, Respondent readily admitted that he knew the knives and other items of contraband were on the van. He explained that the knife in the cup holder was used to cut debris from lawn mower blades. The two knives in the insulated lunch bag were his personal knives. He explained that he brought them in the bag to the County transportation facility and placed the bag in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, where they stayed. He testified without contradiction that he used his knives to cut up fruit that was part of his lunch. He brought his lunch from home in another lunch bag, which he carried with him when he boarded the van. Respondent denied that any of the knives on his van ever were inside the HCI perimeter fence or that he ever allowed the inmates to have access to the knives. Although the inmates involved were assigned to a work squad, and the knives on Respondent's van were not readily accessible to them, the knives nonetheless posed a potential risk to the public, Respondent and his fellow work squad supervisor, the County van drivers, and the inmates themselves. Upon questioning, Respondent admitted giving candy to inmates. He denied sharing his personal food with inmates. Respondent stated to the inspectors that he did not think the items found during the inspection on January 10, 2011, were a "big deal." Respondent explained that he said this because similar items of nuisance contraband were found on both work squad vans inspected that day and that both vans passed monthly inspections with all the nuisance contraband in open view. Even if the folding knives were not observed in prior inspections, Respondent maintained that the inmates had no access to them and that they never were brought into the prison. DOC disagreed with Respondent and terminated his employment based on the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his "no big deal" statement. The Commission also disagreed with Respondent and contends that the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his attitude are clear and convincing proof of bad moral character. The Commission alleged and maintained in its PRO that Respondent brought the knives onto the prison grounds every day he was working as a work squad supervisor between July 1, 2008, and June 22, 2011. However, the evidence was clear that all the contraband items recovered during the inspection on January 10, 2011, including the knives, were removed from the vans at that time, and there was no evidence regarding contraband after that date. It was not clear from the evidence how long prior to the inspection the knives were in the van used by Respondent's work squad. Respondent testified that he brought the insulated lunch bag with his folding knives to the County transportation facility months prior to the inspection. There was no evidence as to how long the other knife was on the van prior to January 10, 2011. Respondent admits that he was "wrong" to have his knives on the van. He does not believe he introduced the knives into the prison. He also does not think he should lose his certification because they were in the cab of the County van and never inside the perimeter fence. Respondent testified that the supervisor of the other work squad van still is working as a correctional officer at HCI although there was not only the same kind of nuisance contraband but also a prohibited metal kitchen knife and fork in the back of his van, where it would be accessible to the inmates, when it was inspected on January 10, 2011. The evidence was not clear as to what discipline that officer received from the Commission, if any.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional certificate for two years, giving him consideration for the time he has been unemployed by DOC, and reinstating his certification as of June 22, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2013.
