The Issue Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one Myra Kathryn Watkins, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one Patrick Francis Murphy, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her pubic area on his and allowing him to kiss her breasts, in violation of s 798.02, F.S., thereby violating s 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one LaMae Simpson, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one William Wehrmann, by dancing in a topless manner while allowing him to place U.S. currency into her g-string and fondle her legs, in violation of s 798.02, F.S., thereby violating 56l.59, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent its agent, servant or employee, one Ellen Marie Collins, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and Lascivious behavior with Vice Officer H. R. Hall by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her pubic region and buttocks on his lap and attempting to place her breasts into his mouth, in violation of s 798.02, F.S. thereby violating s 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Climax, located 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26- 780, Series 4-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On June 11, 1976, one Myra Kathryn Watkins was working as a dancer for the licensee in the subject licensed premises. One of the customers for whom she was dancing was Patrick Francis Murphy. Murphy paid her $10.00 to dance the duration of five records for him. During the course of these dances, on more than one occasion, Murphy kissed the bare breasts of Watkins and she allowed this to occur. On June 17, 1976, one LaMae Simpson was working as a dancer for the licensee in the subject licensed premises. She was dancing topless and wearing a g-string. One of the patrons for whom she danced was William Wehrmann. While standing in the vicinity of where Wehrmann was located, she allowed Wehrmann to fondle her legs with his hands and, at some point in time, held her g-string costume away from her body to allow him to place some form of currency into the area of the g-string with his hand. On June 11, 1976, Officer H. R. Hall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office entered the subject licensed premises. While seated at a table in the premises, he was approached by one of the dancers working there, Elaine Marie Collins. Collins asked if Hall would like her to dance for him. Hall agreed to do this and paid $2.00 for the dance. Collins danced topless for Hall and on four or five occasions during the course of the dance, tried to place her breasts in Hall's mouth. She also rubbed her buttocks over his groin area. During the course of the activities described above, as entered into by the named dancers, no attempts were made by the employees within the licensed premises to stop this activity.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, trading as Climax be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Are the four notices of violation against Respondents valid, and if valid, may the Department of Transportation require that the allegedly offending signs be removed?
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 2000, DOT became aware that two trucks bearing written material were parked adjacent to DOT's right-of-way on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) in St. Johns County in such a manner that the written material was visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. DOT issued four Notices of Violation against the two trucks. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.823. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4188T. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.849. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4189T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4423T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4424T. All of the foregoing notices alleged that the trucks are in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in that they are unpermitted signs. On October 24, 2000, DOT issued a letter to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., advising it that the trucks which were issued the above- referenced notices of violation had been moved temporarily out of view and then returned to visibility at each other's previous milepost location. The letter advised that notwithstanding the movement of the trucks within their general location, the trucks remained illegal signs pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. I-95 is part of the Interstate Highway System. The two trucks are located at times within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95. The trucks can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. Admitted Fact Four of the parties' prehearing stipulation was that at the time the notices of violation were issued, the trucks displayed the words "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc." However, their Admitted Fact Five, incorporating photographs, and other photographs in evidence reveal that one truck had the foregoing display without the slashes and one truck juxtaposed the phrases "Great Food" and "Adult Toys," also without the slashes. The trucks were located within 15 feet of the right-of-way fence and were parked on raised mounds of dirt, elevating them above the surrounding terrain. Immediately adjacent to the trucks were light fixtures with halogen lights aimed at the sides of the trucks. If electricity had been available, the lights could have illuminated the vehicles. The trucks were intentionally placed at their locations. As of January 5, 2001, additional verbiage was added to the trucks which states, "Hunt & Fish Camp." As of the March 7, 2001, date of hearing, the trucks still contained this additional verbiage. On both trucks, the letters are all capitalized; the size of the letters and the paint colors used call the viewer's attention to the phrases, "CAFE? EROTICA," "WE DARE TO BARE," "ADULT TOYS," "GREAT FOOD," and "EXIT 94." The abbreviation "INC.," is the phrase smallest in size, located at the very bottom right, relatively inconspicuous, and the words, "hunt & fish camp," follow, vertical to the rest of the verbiage. There are no addresses, telephone numbers, arrows, or other identifying information. Respondent Cafe Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., is a Florida corporation. At all times material, Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., has been a corporation in good standing with the Florida Department of State, which has registered and approved its corporate name pursuant to Section 607.0401, Florida Statutes. Asher G. Sullivan, Jr., a/k/a Jerry Sullivan, is incorporator, President, shareholder, and Director of the corporation, which will hereafter be referred to as "Exit 94, Inc." Exit 94, Inc., owns, insures, and maintains the two trucks which are the subject of this proceeding. Exit 94, Inc., likewise owns the real property on which the trucks are located, which parcel consists of approximately 11 acres situated between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Exit 94, Inc., does not sell food or adult toys. It does not offer dancers for public viewing. The business of Exit 94, Inc., is developing a hunting and fishing camp at the property it owns, the property where its trucks were cited by DOT, between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Respondent Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica, is a Florida corporation which holds the license and owns the assets of the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is president, shareholder, and owner of Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., which will hereafter be referred-to as "Café Erotica." The St. Johns Management Company manages the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is the President and shareholder of the St. Johns Management Company. The Café Erotica restaurant is a 24-hour per day, full-service restaurant which features dancers clad in bathing suits and which sells adult toys. The Café Erotica restaurant is located at 2620 State Road 207 (SR-207), at the intersection of SR 207 and the exit 94 off-ramps from I-95. The real property owned by Café Erotica is not contiguous to the subject real property owned by Exit 94, Inc. The real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., which is the subject of DOT's notices of violation is approximately seven miles from the Café Erotica restaurant. The Café Erotica restaurant currently advertises on its premises and on a billboard at exit 94 of I-95. In the past, Café Erotica has advertised "we dare to bare," "adult toys," and "exit 94" on other billboards located adjacent to I- 95 in St. Johns County. Café Erotica no longer rents billboards in these locations. The advertisements of Café Erotica currently at exit 94 of I-95 include the words, "private dances," and "great food/adult toys." The advertising is specifically directed at motorists, including truck drivers, on I-95. In addition to the real property where its trucks were cited by DOT, which real property Exit 94, Inc., holds by warranty deed, Exit 94, Inc., leases property at the southeast corner of I-95's exit 93, where SR-206 intersects with I-95. At that location, Exit 94, Inc., displays a 14-foot by 25-foot permanent billboard sign reading "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Great Food/Adult Toys/Exit 94, Inc." (Note juxtaposition of part of the corporate name). Below this billboard, on the same leased property, is a smaller sign stating "Fish Camp" with a telephone number (P-11; TR 66-64, 73- 74, 183-184). Exit 94, Inc., claims to maintain an office and a telephone on this leased property. Mr. Sullivan's primary business is that of renting billboards for advertising purposes, which he owns. He has advertised on leased signs and has knowledge of DOT's sign permit requirements. At one time, Mr. Sullivan intended to place a billboard on the property owned by Exit 94, Inc. He has not done so. Neither Café Erotica nor Exit 94, Inc., has applied to DOT for sign permits for the subject trucks, nor paid any sign permit fees for them. No sign permits have been issued to any entity for the subject trucks. When the Notices of Violation were issued, DOT inspectors did not enter on the real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., or pull any business licenses for the property. They viewed the trucks from I-95. No improvements were visible from I-95. DOT did not undertake any investigation to determine the owner(s) of the subject trucks or subject real property. Café Erotica does not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, and no citizen testified that the trucks had caused him/her to patronize the Café Erotica. DOT witnesses acknowledged that the Notices of Violation issued to Café Erotica were essentially issued in error because DOT did not know the identity of the owner of the subject trucks and real property. Upon discovering that Café Erotica did not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, DOT made no effort to dismiss the violations against Café Erotica. Jerry Sullivan has decision-making authority for both Respondents as a corporate officer of both corporations. Jerry Sullivan makes management decisions concerning Café Erotica, including whether, and how, to advertise. Jerry Sullivan has directed all activity on the Exit 94, Inc., property. He anticipates creating, maintaining, and charging people for the privilege of using the subject property as a fishing and hunting camp. He also intends to reward employees and clients of his various enterprises with free privileges at the camp. Ninety percent of the time, the subject trucks are parked on the subject property. However, from time to time, the trucks, one of which was burned out and one of which has a "for sale" sign painted on its windshield, are driven off the Exit 94, Inc., property to haul equipment and corn to the subject property, for "truck maintenance," and for incidental uses in connection with Exit 94, Inc., and Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, including Café Erotica. On some of these occasions, the trucks are parked in the parking lot of the Café Erotica restaurant. The trucks are used off the Exit 94, Inc., property only two or three times per month. Except when under repair, they can be driven on the roads and highways. Exit 94, Inc., paid approximately $35,000 for the subject property on or about April 9, 1999, well before the notices of violation. Eight months prior to hearing (approximately three months before the notices of violation), Exit 94, Inc. dug a pond in a naturally low spot and/or a natural basin where Mr. Sullivan believed a pond originally had been on the subject property. A solar panel pump was installed to put water into the excavation because getting electricity run to the property was prohibitively expensive. Inspection of the subject property by DOT personnel only occurred about two-and-one-half weeks before the disputed- fact hearing. At that time, the solar pump used to fill the pond with water was not working well, so that the possibility of fish living in the rather shallow pond was highly unlikely. The pond was not stocked with fish. The property was not stocked with game animals. There was also one very ramshackle deer blind on the property and a permanent metal, utility pole had been erected to support another deer blind. There were no utilities, restrooms, offices, or facilities to clean game on the premises. No fishing equipment was available for purchase. This situation was memorialized by photographs in evidence. The Exit 94, Inc., property has only one entrance which is not directly accessible from a public roadway. To reach Exit 94, Inc.'s, only entrance, a car gets off I-95 at exit 94, where Café Erotica is located, and proceeds to a private dirt road created and owned by Georgia-Pacific timber company, and then drives approximately one mile along that dirt road over the timber company's land. Thousands of acres of scrub pine belonging to the timber company surround Exit 94, Inc.'s property. Entrance to the timber company land is through a fence/gate. The timber company gate is "posted," warning that hunting is not permitted on its land and that violators will be prosecuted. The Exit 94, Inc., property is also "posted," and therefore not open to the general public. There is a "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., Hunt & Fish Camp" sign at its entrance. It cannot be inferred, as urged by DOT, that if a real property owner "posts" its property so the owner may subsequently prosecute trespassers and poachers, the owner also cannot charge a fee to customers, invited guests, or business invitees who hunt or fish on its property with its permission. Travelling as described above, there are approximately nine and one-half miles between exit 94 of I-95 and the Exit 94, Inc., property. There are no signs advertising a "hunt and fish camp" on this stretch of land, but Exit 94, Inc., has its billboard and other sign at Exit 93. (See Finding of Fact 22.) Exit 94, Inc., presented accounts showing it spent over $7,003 maintaining its signs since 1999 and over $12,000 on the subject trucks. Exit 94, Inc., lists addresses and locations other than the subject property as its business address(es) for various purposes. It maintains no office or telephone on the subject property. The only building on the subject property is a very small storage shack, placed there by Exit 94, Inc. The shack is not habitable as overnight lodging. It was designed to hold repair equipment and corn for seeding the pond for waterfowl and seeding the woods for deer. There is no evidence whether this method of luring game from the surrounding area is legal or illegal, but it is certainly feasible, given the location of the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 38.) Russell Market is General Manager for the Café Erotica restaurant. He was directed by Mr. Sullivan to check on Exit 94, Inc.'s, subject property, and he did so once a week and scattered corn for nine months. He saw wild turkeys on the subject property. Bill King is affiliated with Mr. Sullivan's companies. He has not hunted the subject property, but he sighted one of the deer stands. No witness testified to having camped overnight on the subject property. Bill Harry, who is employed by Mr. Sullivan, has hunted the subject property three or four times without success, despite once seeing a deer. Jerry Sullivan killed a deer on the subject property. There is no parking lot on the subject property. Respondents' witnesses testified that the subject trucks are parked on raised mounds of earth because the subject property is swampy. Only several hundred-by-60 feet have been cleared of brush. There is no telephone service to the subject property. If someone dials the telephone number listed for Exit 94, Inc. on its application to be a fish farm (see Finding of Fact 55) which is the same number on its sign at I-95's exit number 93 (see Finding of Fact 22), a recorded message relays the caller to a telephone number for the cell phone Mr. Sullivan carries on his person. No utilities are currently available on the subject property, but the solar pump is in use at the pond. Bill Harry repaired the pond pump a few days after showing DOT personnel around the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 36.) At hearing, he testified that the pond is now filling well with water. When the pond is full, Mr. Sullivan intends to stock it with fish. Exit 94, Inc., holds an occupational license from St. Johns County as a "fish camp." In issuing this license, the County accepted Exit 94, Inc.'s, designation of its business without further inquiry. Exit 94, Inc., has applied for a "fish farm" license from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Exit 94, Inc., produced invoices sent to clients for hunting and fishing privileges on the subject property, corresponding checks in payment, and tax returns. Patricia Doorbar, bookkeeper for Exit 94, Inc. and all of Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, testified that she had drafted all of the invoices, and had prepared the tax returns. She further testified that she maintained Exit 94, Inc.'s corporate financial books in accord with generally accepted accounting principles. The invoices and payments reflect that other business entities controlled by Mr. Sullivan or his family members were billed and paid for use of the Exit 94, Inc., property. Exit 94, Inc., currently operates at a loss, made up as necessary by Mr. Sullivan. No legitimate reason was demonstrated to pierce the corporate veil of any of Mr. Sullivan's corporations. Approximately two weeks before the disputed-fact hearing, Exit 94, Inc., made improvements to the subject property. These included laying out feed corn on the ground, repairing a deer stand so it could support one or more hunters, and repairing the solar pump. See supra. These improvements were memorialized by photographs in evidence. Respondents asserted that DOT has selectively enforced the sign law against them on the basis of many photographs of trucks bearing written material which were admitted in evidence. The trucks typically carry a business name, address and telephone number. Some carried only a business name. DOT rarely issues notices of violations for trucks. Within the last three-and-one-half years, trucks constituted approximately five such notices out of 3500 sign violation notices of all kinds, not just off-premises signs. The notices to these two Respondents constitute four of the five notices. DOT has promulgated no rules or policies specifying the factors to be considered when evaluating whether an operational truck constitutes an "off-premises sign" worthy of a violation notice. In the normal course of business, DOT inspectors determine whether trucks constitute "on-premises signs" on a case-by-case analysis which weighs content of the sign, usage of the truck, location and length of time the truck is in a single location, and whether the sign content advertises the business at the location where the truck is parked, advertises another business, or advertises anything at all. Inspectors have wide discretion in issuing notices of violation. With respect to the majority of Respondents' photographs presented at hearing, DOT representatives gave reasonable explanations why the truck owners had not been notified of violations, usually because the truck was being operated on the highway, was not parked over-long away from the business premises which it named, or was parked on the property of the business to which it belonged or which it named. In one instance, a contractor's truck was not charged with a violation because it was parked at a construction site which also bore a sign proclaiming that the construction work was being done by that contractor. Sometimes the reason a truck had not been cited was because the truck had not been located. DOT does not research which corporations or persons own or operate trucks painted with business names, and apparently, precision in painting a business name on other operable trucks had no effect on DOT's decision to treat other operable trucks as "on-premises signs" so that no notices of violation were issued against them. Similar photographs of trucks which Mr. Sullivan had sent to DOT were personally evaluated by DOT's Assistant Right- of-Way Manager for Operations, but this measure was only in response to the Respondents' allegations of selective enforcement in the instant case. The Assistant Right-of-Way Manager directed DOT district personnel to take either further investigative or regulatory action as she instructed on a case- by-case basis. One truck for "Smiley's" was subsequently issued a violation notice.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issues in this case involve whether the Respondent has engaged in acts of misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, whether the Respondent's Florida educator's certificate should be revoked or other disciplinary sanction imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the standards for entry into practice as a teacher, including licensure and the regulation of practice of teachers once they are licensed. The Respondent is a licensed Florida Educator (teacher) holding certificate 795510, covering the area of mathematics. That license is valid through June 30, 2003. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years the Respondent was employed with the Washington County School District as a teacher at Vernon Middle School. From September 1999 through December 2000 the Respondent was assigned to teach low-functioning exceptional student education (ESE) students. ESE students are those who have learning disabilities or physical impairments which adversely affect the ability to learn. In January 2001, the Respondent sought and obtained a transfer from her ESE assignment to a position teaching mathematics classes, which was within the scope of her certificate. She continued to teach mathematics until her suspension with pay in April 2001. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years the Respondent also taught adult night school courses. When the Respondent became employed as an ESE teacher the Washington County School District issued her a laptop computer for the purpose of preparing individual education plans (IEP) and other paperwork required in the ESE program. The Vernon Middle School guidance counselor and its other ESE teacher were also issued laptop computers for ESE paperwork purposes. Witness Heather Miller, testifying for the Petitioner, stated that all ESE teachers received a letter limiting the use of the laptop to ESE purposes. The Respondent testified that she did not receive any letter or other instructions limiting her use of the computer. Ms. Miller admitted on cross-examination that she was not present when any such instructions may have been delivered to the Respondent. Be that as it may, the gravaman of the charges in the administrative complaint do not involve use of the ESE laptop computer for personal purposes versus employment-related purposes. The Respondent may have been instructed not to use the computer for anything other than ESE instructional-related purposes or may not have been given such instructions, or may simply not recall getting such instructions. Whether or not she received such instructions is immaterial to the charges in the administrative complaint, however. The Respondent had the laptop computer in her classroom when it was first issued to her, while she was learning how to use it. Sometime early in her use of it she installed a program called "Clue Finder" which is a software program for children for the third to fifth grade. She allowed the students to use this software in class. The laptop had never been connected to the internet at the time she permitted students to use it in her classroom and her classroom did not have internet access at that time. She ceased permitting students to use the laptop after she had a discussion with the other ESE teacher, Julie Johnson, about her not permitting her students to use her laptop. The Respondent's students were not permitted to use the laptop from that point forward, which was sometime in the month of February 2000. Each laptop was equipped with a "zip drive" and "zip disc" in order to download the "GibCo Dynamo Program," the program used for ESE paperwork purposes. Therefore, it was unnecessary for ESE employees to access the internet using their school board-issued laptop. ESE employees were permitted to remove and transport their laptops away from school premises so that they could work on IEP and other ESE paperwork at other locations, including their homes. The Respondent took her laptop home sometime during or after February 2000 and began becoming acquainted with the GibCo Dynamo Program, which helps ESE teachers correctly complete IEP's and other paperwork. It was necessary to periodically update the GibCO Program to reflect changes in the ESE forms. The Respondent already had the laptop at home and did her IEP work there because she did not have time to do it in class. Therefore, she asked Brenda Miller, the ESE resource person from the county office, if she could use her laptop to update her GibCo program through her home internet service provider. She received permission and did so in late February or early March 2000. On one occasion prior to the end of the spring 2000 school term, the Respondent permitted one of her adult alternative education students to use her laptop to complete a paper he was writing. She assisted him in using the laptop and was present the entire time he was using it. This incident occurred before she had begun any personal use of the laptop or put any of her programs on it. Therefore, the use occurred before the material contained in Petitioner's Exhibit one was received or stored on the laptop. The Respondent did not teach during the summer of 2000 and spent more time accessing the internet through the school laptop for personal purposes. Although they were still living in the same home, the Respondent and her husband had become estranged and were ultimately divorced. During the summer of 2000 the Respondent used the ICQ program to communicate with and strike-up non-sexual relationships with other people, including males. The ICQ program is a forum or "chat room," with the exchange of ideas and information on virtually any subject. Users fill out a personal profile which informs other users about the person's interests or subjects the person is interested in receiving or sending communications about. The Respondent contends that her ICQ profile only contained her name, age and gender. When such a user starts his or her computer other users are alerted to that user's presence and availability for communication. The user may send or receive communications to or from others, which communications can contain attachments, such as documents or pictures. During the time she was using the laptop to access the ICQ program, the Respondent's husband, her baby-sitter and her baby-sitter's mother also had access to the laptop at various times in her home. The Respondent's laptop was connected to the internet at her home for approximately three and one-half to four months. Sometime during the summer of 2000 lightening struck her modem and destroyed it. The laptop was never connected to the internet after that event. During the time the laptop was connected to the internet in the Respondent's home the documents contained in Petitioner's exhibit one were received on the laptop and placed on the hard drive in fifty-eight program folders. The Respondent maintains that she did not realize that the materials contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One, which were on her computer, had been recorded on her hard drive. She admits to seeing some of those documents in Petitioner's exhibit one but maintains that she had not seen all of them. She maintains that she did not see many of the items in Petitioner's Exhibit One, especially items which indicate the ICQ identification name "Hotrod," which was that of her husband. The Respondent claimed that she never knowingly or intentionally accessed or "downloaded" any pornographic materials on her school laptop, nor did she solicit such material from anyone else. During the time her laptop was operating on the internet, through the ICQ program, she would sometime receive messages with documents attached. On some occasions she states that she would discover sexually explicit material when she opened the document and that when she did so would immediately close the file and assumed that it had been deleted. She claims that she had no idea the information was being saved on the computer's hard drive. If the Respondent received unsolicited, sexually explicit material from someone she had wanted to chat with she states that she would inform them not to send that type of information if they wanted to continue to communicate with her. During the time period in question the Respondent also received unsolicited e-mail of a sexually explicit nature which indicated that she had subscribed to it, although she states she never had. The fact that an e-mail indicates that the recipient is a subscriber does not mean that the recipient actually solicited or subscribed to the e-mail. Rather, the recipient's name could have been obtained from another source merely upon the receiver's profile having been provided to a particular site. It is unclear how the material contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One was saved on the hard drive of the Respondent's laptop. It can not be precisely determined who saved a particular file or who if anyone opened and viewed a particular file, primarily because the Respondent did not have sole access to the computer while it was in her home. It is probable that the Respondent did obtain some of the material that was present on her laptop hard drive, as she did acknowledge having seen some of the material in the past, when confronted with the presence of it by her employer. It cannot be determined from a review of the laptop hard drive that the Respondent named or saved any specific file contained in the Petitioner's exhibit one. After the laptop's modem was destroyed by lighting, the Respondent continued to use the laptop for her IEP's until she returned the computer to the school in September 2000, at the request of Ms. Harrell. The Respondent specifically requested permission to lock the computer up and Ms. Harrell told her she could keep it in a locked storage room, which she did. The storage room was in the administration building, which was next to the building in which her classroom was located. The laptop remained in the locked storage room until October 2000, when the Respondent was assigned a new ESE student. She brought the laptop to the classroom for a short time on that one occasion to work on the new student's IEP, but the students never had access to the computer nor were they ever in a position to see what she was doing on the computer. In January 2001, the Respondent was re-assigned, at her request, from the ESE position to the position of math teacher, which was within her area of certification. She had no further use for the laptop and believed she had removed from it all programs, games and other information she had put on the computer as a result of her personnel use. The Respondent removed her internet service program, Digital Express, and the ICQ Program, believing that this action removed anything associated with these programs from the computer. She was unaware that there were separate program files for the ICQ Program saved to the hard drive. If she had known of this she would have deleted them. Gerald Fender, the Washington County School District Computer Technician indeed saw evidence that an attempt had been made to remove information from the Respondent's laptop when he inspected it. The Respondent's laptop was turned over to her successor, Aubrey Herndon, the new ESE teacher, who placed it into a locked closet in his classroom. The computer remained there until approximately April 10, 2001, when Mr. Herndon removed it to learn how to use it to prepare his IEP. On April 10, 2001, Heather Miller was assisting Mr. Herndon with transferring information from a zip disc to the laptop when she noticed two sites listed on the "favorites" screen, "ALT.Sex Stories" and "Asclepius Himself." Upon seeing these items, Ms. Miller took the laptop and reported what she had found to the principal, Ms. Harrell and the School Resource Officer, Deputy Mark Collins. Ms. Miller and Officer Collins searched the computer for other suspicious files but were unable to locate any. The next day, Gerald Fender, the school board computer technician was called in and asked to search the computer. After an extensive search, Mr. Fender located the ICQ Program in the program files. In the afternoon of April 11, 2001, the Respondent was called to Ms. Harrell's office and confronted with some of the information contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One. The first document the Respondent was shown was page eighteen of Petitioner's Exhibit One from a program called "pal talk" which was supposed to be a program which enables a person to speak to another person over the internet. The Respondent was shocked when she was shown this document because she had thought she had deleted the entire pal talk program and the file containing this document, after she had received the document when she first accessed the pal talk program. She was shocked when this sexually explicit document appeared through a program she had understood to be a voice program and which she thought she had immediately taken off the computer. The Respondent was also shown a copy of page twenty- nine of Petitioner's Exhibit One, which was a sexually explicit picture of a man standing in a shower. She recognized that picture as also coming from her computer. She acknowledged that the two pictures she was shown were from her computer and then she told "them" that they did not have to show her anymore. There was some conflict in the testimony regarding the precise number of pictures from Exhibit One which were shown to the Respondent. It is unnecessary to resolve this discrepancy because all of the testimony of all witnesses present is consistent that the Respondent acknowledged that the pictures were from her laptop computer after being shown a few of them and no more were therefore shown. The Respondent was asked whether the students had ever used the computer and she said that they had, but that the students were allowed to play games on the computer only during the time before she had taken the computer to her home and before the information contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One had ever been received. The Respondent also stated in that initial meeting on April 11, 2001, that she had thought that she had deleted all the information which she had been shown from the computer. During this meeting the Respondent also made a statement to the effect that she had used the laptop at night to access her ICQ file when she "would get bored" while working on class work. She was referring to working at home and not in the classroom. Also, during this meeting she told Officer Collins that the students had never seen the objectionable information, and he indicated that he would interview her students, which she encouraged him to do. No student interviewed indicated that he or she had seen any of the information contained in the Petitioner's Exhibit One. Officer Collins also consulted with Captain Strickland the Chief of Investigations of the Washington County Sheriff's Department Capt. Strickland advised that there was no basis for any criminal charges. The Respondent met with Superintendent Jerry Tyre in his office on May 3, 2001, and submitted her resignation effective May 14, 2001. The Respondent had already been informed by Ms. Harrell before this incident that she was not going to be recommended for renewal as an annual contract teacher for the next year. By resigning rather than contesting the superintendent's suspension, the Respondent believed that she could resolve the situation quickly without any further publicity or notoriety. In June 2001, the Respondent applied for employment as a teacher in Bay County, Florida. She submitted written references from three former colleagues, Paul Parker, her supervisor and director of the Washington County Technician Center; Mary Davis, Adult Education Coordinator and Genevelyn Brown, EAS Assistant. Each of the individuals was informed of the circumstances surrounding the Respondent's resignation and each was still willing to give her a positive reference. The Respondent also solicited support from several parents of students she had taught or tutored while employed in Washington County, during the investigation of this matter by the Department of Education. She informed each of these individuals of the nature of the allegations against her and the circumstances surrounding her resignation. Each of these individuals, Rhonda Duren, Julie Bielinski, Brenda Richards and Victor Marshall, submitted written statements supporting her ability and their belief she should continue as a teacher in Washington County or elsewhere. The Respondent obtained employment as a teacher with the School Board of Bay County at Mosely High for the 2001-2002 school year. She was still employed as a teacher in Bay County at the time of this hearing. She has had no disciplinary problems of a similar nature to that to which occurred in Washington County. It is not clear whether the authorities who hired her in Bay County were aware of the circumstances surrounding her resignation from her position in Washington County. Both prior and subsequent to the events at issue in this case, the Respondent has never had any accusations of any similar misconduct and has no disciplinary record. It has not been established that either the intentional or inadvertent accessing of sexually explicit materials in the privacy of the Respondent's home (even though on a school-issued computer), was immoral or grossly immoral. The downloading of the materials and the presence of them on the computer never became accessible to any students and no student was ever aware that such information was on the computer. It has not been established that the Respondent's failure to delete the sexually explicit material from the computer prior to taking it back to her place of employment constitutes immorality or gross immorality. It has not been shown that the conduct involved in this proceeding was a matter of any notoriety so that her position in the education profession could be the subject of any public disgrace or disrespect or that her service to the community in that profession could be impaired. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in personal conduct which is seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The Petitioner elicited opinion testimony from witnesses which was conclusary and failed to specify precisely how the conduct could seriously reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. The opinion testimony was based on a factual assumption which was not established by the evidence, namely that the Respondent's students used her laptop after the sexually explicit material had been received and thus had reasonable access to the laptop with that material on it. In fact, the evidence of record supports the opposite conclusion; that the students had no such access to the laptop after the sexually explicit material had been received on it, so the opinions to the effect that her effectiveness has been seriously reduced cannot be accepted since they are based upon an invalid assumption. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions concerning learning or their mental health or physical safety. The Respondent tried to delete the material from her laptop, albeit unsuccessfully, prior to returning it to school, based upon what she knew at that time. She returned it to school thinking it was deleted when it was not. Nevertheless, her conduct after the computer was returned to her school prevented the students from gaining access to it since the computer was maintained in a locked storeroom, one building removed from the building where her classroom was located. Thus it was highly unlikely that the students would have access to the sexually explicit material on the computer. There is no evidence in the record that they did.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Commissioner of Education dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331 South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer & Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educators Specialist Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Phillips is a person of the masculine sex. He was employed as a maintenance foreman at Respondent Martin Stables South, Inc. (Martin Stables), of Reddick, Florida, from May 19, 2005, until June 27, 2005. Edmund Martin is the president of Martin Stables. He is also the only stockholder. Mr. Martin is aware of the number of employees working at Martin Stables. He testified that Martin Stables had less than 15 employees during the period May 19, 2005 to June 27, 2005. Moreover, he testified that Martin Stables never employed 15 or more employees in the current year, or in the year preceding May 19, 2005. He further stated that Martin Stables had never employed as many as 15 employees at any given time. Mr. Phillips provided no evidence contradicting this assertion.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Phillips Post Office Box 771011 Ocala, Florida 34477 David A. Glenny, Esquire Bice Cole Law Firm, P.L. 1333 Southeast Twenty-Fifth Loop Suite 101 Ocala, Florida 34471 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the termination of the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent was an act of retaliation against the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on July 16, 2003, the Petitioner became employed by CFI Resorts Management, Inc. (CFI), in the housekeeping department at Westgate Vacation Villas (Villas). CFI employs more than 15 employees and is the operator of the Westgate Resorts/Westgate Vacation Villas. At all times material to this case, CFI maintained a written anti-discrimination policy and established procedures for the reporting of alleged discrimination. The Petitioner received a copy of the written policy when she became employed by CFI at the Villas. The CFI policies were also accessible on the company intranet, to which all employees had access. From 2003 through 2005, the Petitioner attempted to transfer from the housekeeping department to various other departments at the Villas. Her attempts were unsuccessful, primarily because she lacked the qualifications or experience to perform the jobs she sought. In 2005, while still employed in the housekeeping department, the Petitioner began a consensual sexual relationship with Geoff Price, a supervisor in the security department at the Villas. On February 17, 2006, the Petitioner requested and received a transfer from housekeeping to the Villas security department, where she became employed as a security officer. At the time of the transfer, the Petitioner did not meet basic qualifications for employment as a security officer. She was unable to speak or write English sufficiently to allow her to prepare the reports required by her position. After she began working in the security department, other employees had to assist her in preparing the reports. The Petitioner was routinely late for her assigned work shift, and she sometimes slept on the job. The sexual relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Price continued after she began her employment in the security department. Other employees were aware that the Petitioner and Mr. Price were engaged in a sexual relationship and were hesitant to complain about her lack of job skills or performance. Security department supervisors were unable to manage the Petitioner because she was involved with Mr. Price. One supervisor testified that the Petitioner was essentially unmanageable because the sexual relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Price allowed the Petitioner to "get away" with her poor job performance. He testified that other employees had to "walk on egg shells with [the Petitioner] there." The Petitioner received no warnings or written reprimands during her security department employment, and her hourly pay rose from $9.50 to $10.57. The Petitioner and Mr. Price engaged in sexual activity two or three times a month, during working and non-working hours, usually in Mr. Price's office or in hotel rooms at the Villas. The Petitioner and Mr. Price also engaged in sexual activity at the home of Clinton Skinner, a security department manager. On three occasions, Mr. Price surreptitiously recorded video of sexual activity between the Petitioner and Mr. Price using a computer located at Mr. Skinner's home. The videos, dated April 26, 2009, February 11, 2010, and March 24, 2010, were recorded without the Petitioner's knowledge. The video recordings were copied onto at least one DVD and were exhibited at the Villas to other employees by Mr. Price. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Price were married to other people during the period they engaged in sexual activity. The Petitioner became aware that other employees had seen the videos, and she complained to Mr. Price about the recording and exhibition of their sexual activity. In May 2011, the Petitioner discontinued the sexual relationship with Mr. Price. On or about June 6, 2011, the Petitioner contacted Roger Cuccaro (director of security at the Villas) and Angel Rivera (CFI's regional human resources director) and complained about the surreptitious recording, the DVD, and the fact that other employees had been allowed to see the video recordings. The Petitioner submitted a written statement of her complaint to CFI a few days later. CFI commenced an investigation into the Petitioner's allegations. Mr. Price was to be interviewed on June 16, 2011, but he resigned immediately prior to the interview and refused to cooperate in the investigation. The investigation soon expanded to a review of the Villas' security department operations, and numerous employees were interviewed. The investigation revealed the extent of the sexual activity between the Petitioner and Mr. Price and revealed that other co-workers had engaged in similar sexual activity. Additionally, investigators learned that two sexually-involved employees had engaged in an incident of physical violence while at work. CFI investigators also discovered that the Petitioner was unqualified for the position she held, was frequently late for her shift, and was unable to perform essential tasks of her position without assistance from other employees and that she, and other security department employees, would sleep while on the job. CFI investigators reviewed usage of the company email system and discovered that some security department employees, including the Petitioner, had used office computers and email to send numerous explicit pornographic photographs to co-workers and to other persons beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2009. CFI policy prohibits use of office email for various non-business purposes, including dissemination of discriminatory, hostile, suggestive or otherwise inappropriate email. After reviewing the results of the investigation, and in consultation with the corporate human resources director, Mark Waltrip, the chief operating officer for CFI, decided that he needed to "clean house" in the security department. CFI attempts to create a wholesome "family-type" atmosphere for guests staying at its properties. The security department is an important element in maintaining such an environment. Mr. Waltrip reasonably believed that the behavior of numerous security department employees was contrary to the expectations of CFI and was detrimental to operation of the resort. CFI terminated the employment of Security Director Cuccaro, Human Resources Regional Director Rivera, and Security Manager Skinner. All security department employees who participated in the dissemination of the pornographic email, including the Petitioner, were terminated from employment. CFI terminated the employment of other security department employees for various reasons related to the operations of the department. At the hearing, Mr. Waltrip testified that he would have fired Mr. Price had he been presented with the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner's employment by CFI was terminated on August 17, 2011. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence that any of the terminations, including her own, were unreasonable or unwarranted. There was no evidence presented that any of the employees who engaged in dissemination of the pornographic email were not terminated from employment. The evidence failed to establish that CFI terminated the Petitioner's employment in retaliation for her complaint about Mr. Price's surreptitious recording of their sexual encounters and subsequent exhibition of the DVD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Janice D. Kerr, Esquire J. D. Kerr, P.A. Suite 7 20 South Rose Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 M. Jesusa Cruz Panton, Esquire Panton Law Firm PL 1094 Plaza Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Myrna Lizz Maysonet, Esquire Brandon Hill, Esquire Richard Wayne Epstein, Esquire Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Alexander Roy, is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g) and (n), Florida Statutes (2011). If violations are found, the appropriate penalty must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1035877, covering the areas of mathematics, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social studies, which is valid through June 2015. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the St. Lucie County School Board (SLCSB) as a mathematics teacher at Manatee Elementary School, also known as Manatee K-8 School. On or about January 13, 2012, Respondent was arrested in Osceola County, Florida, as the result of allegations that Respondent used an internet provider and “knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed and coerced an individual who had not attained the age of eighteen years, to engage in sexual activity.” The allegations were based on the probable cause affidavit of Kevin Kulp, Special Agent for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who worked on the undercover operation giving rise to Respondent’s arrest, which stated that Respondent contacted a person on-line that he believed to be the mother of a 13-year-old girl in order to have sex with both the mother and the daughter. The “mother” and the “daughter” were undercover police officers. As a result of Respondent’s arrest, a search warrant was executed to search Respondent’s residence in St. Lucie County, Florida. According to Detective Longson, the search revealed that Respondent possessed approximately 75-100 images of minors engaged in explicit sexual conduct. The analysis of the information seized at Respondent’s home also included photos and videos of a teenage girl, approximately 16 years old, engaged in explicit sexual acts with Respondent. On January 17, 2012, as a result of his arrest, Respondent was placed on temporary duty assignment at his home. On or about March 5, 2012, Respondent was charged by indictment with one count of Enticing and Attempting to Entice a Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and four counts of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). A Superseding Indictment containing the same charges was filed May 31, 2012. On March 27, 2012, he was suspended without pay by the SLCSB because of the federal criminal charges against him. On April 10, 2012, Respondent was terminated from his employment by the SLCSB, based upon his inability to report for work because of his imprisonment. On or about June 15, 2012, Respondent was tried in federal court before a jury. He was found guilty of all five counts. On September 12, 2012, United States District Court Judge K. Michael Moore adjudicated Respondent guilty on all five counts, and sentenced him to life in prison as to Count 1, and 120 months of incarceration as to each of Counts 2 through 5, with the penalty for all five counts to be served concurrently. Upon release, Respondent is to be placed on probation for life, a condition of which is to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. § 16901. et seq.), as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender agency in a state in which he resides, works, is a student, or was convicted of a qualifying offense. Also included in the Special Conditions of Supervision are that Respondent may not possess or use any computer, with the exception of pre-approved use in connection with authorized employment; that Respondent shall not have personal, mail, telephone, or computer contact with children under the age of 18; that Respondent shall not be involved in any children’s or youth organization; and that Respondent shall participate in a sex offender program. Respondent’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction were covered by the media, in the newspaper and on the radio, television, and internet. Respondent’s conviction significantly impairs Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher in the community. Respondent’s certification is for middle school grades. The prohibition from having contact with children under the age of 18 makes it impossible for him to hold employment as a teacher in the public school system. As stated by Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for St. Lucie County Schools, “[t]here is absolutely no way that the students and the parents and the community would have any faith in him being alone in a classroom with kids even for one minute. And he would not be able to effectively be in a classroom. Or be on campus, period, where there are children present.” His testimony is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of all four Counts in the Amended Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder, P.A. 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Alexander Roy, Register # 99238-004 United States Penitentiary Post Office Box 24550 Tucson, Arizona 85734 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding. Parties The Department is the state agency charged with licensing and regulation of healthcare professionals pursuant to section 20.43 and chapter 456, Florida Statutes. The Board of Psychology is the professional licensing board charged with final agency action related to discipline against psychologists pursuant to chapter 490, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a psychologist by the State of Florida, having been issued license number PY 9171. Underlying Criminal Case On or about April 26, 2017, two images of suspected child pornography were uploaded to the cloud storage associated with mobile phone number 321-890-7266. That event prompted Synchronoss Technologies to report this information to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”)1. Synchronoss Technologies provides cloud and digital storage for Verizon cell phone subscribers. On May 9, 2017, NCMEC forwarded that 1 NCMEC is an organization that maintains databases of material that has been identified through law enforcement as child abuse material. It assists law enforcement and other agencies with locating missing children. information as a CyberTip to Brevard County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”). The CyberTip included the suspected pornographic images. The BCSO Special Victim’s Unit, which investigates online exploitation and abuse of children, investigated the case. Agent Sorokin, a law enforcement officer with extensive experience investigating crimes involving child exploitation and child pornography, was assigned to investigate the CyberTip. Agent Sorokin reviewed the two images provided with the CyberTip and confirmed they were sexually explicit pornographic images depicting minor girls between the ages of 11 and 13 with exposed genitalia.2 Agent Sorokin then issued a subpoena to Verizon and Synchronoss Technologies for the mobile phone number, 321-890-7266, to identify the subscriber of the phone that uploaded the pornographic images. Verizon identified the account subscriber as Respondent, and provided Respondent’s address of 1323 Brumpton Place, Rockledge, Florida. On April 13, 2018, Agent Sorokin conducted an interview with Respondent at his then-office, located at the VA clinic. During that interview, post-Miranda, Respondent admitted that he uploaded the images of the girls using the application BitTorrent and subsequently deleted them. He then initialed the images signifying that he recognized them as the images he uploaded.3 Respondent wrote an apology letter in which, among other things, he stated, “I am sorry I viewed anything and I am sorry to you and your families. You did not do anything wrong you were not at fault.” 2 Child pornography is defined as any image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct. § 847.001(3), Fla. Stat. Sexual conduct is defined as actual … lewd exhibition of the genitals. §§ 827.01(1)(h) and 847.001(16), Fla. Stat. 3 Respondent signed the card acknowledging he understood his Miranda rights. He then made a series of voluntary admissions to Agent Sorokin. For instance, when asked how he recognized the images, Respondent stated that the images were on his phone; and when asked the ages of the girls in the images, Respondent stated the girls were 11 or 12. With Respondent’s consent, Agent Sorokin took possession of Respondent’s cell phone. After obtaining a search warrant, BCSO investigators searched his phone. A subsequent forensic analysis of the phone revealed that the phone contained a web history with search terms including “innocent_girl2 at Chaturbate: full naked,” and “seventeen-excuse me 13-Pornhub.com.” The web bookmarks included a URL address titled “Child Psychologist Salary and Job Information.” The search did not reveal any pornographic images of children on Respondent’s phone as he had deleted the images. On June 21, 2018, pursuant to an arrest warrant, Respondent was arrested for two counts of possession of child pornography. On August 28, 2018, the State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit filed a two-count Information in Case No. 18-CF-033336 against Respondent, alleging Respondent contributed to the delinquency or dependency of a minor, namely allowing and/or encouraging the sexual exploitation of a child. On September 21, 2018, Respondent pled nolo contendere to two counts of contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a minor, in violation of section 827.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes, with adjudication withheld.4 He was sentenced to two years of probation, one year for each count. Although Respondent was not required to register as a sex offender, he was required to undergo sex offender counseling. Specifically, the sentence required that Respondent not have contact or overnight visits with children under age 18. Additional conditions of supervision included: no working or volunteering at any place where children under age 18 congregate; no viewing, accessing, owning, or possessing any obscene, pornographic, or 4 The Administrative Complaint alleged “On or about September 21, 2018, Respondent plead nolo contendere to one count of Contribute to Delinquent Dependency of Minor or Child, in the County Court, in and for Brevard County, Florida, Case No.: 2018-MM-33336.” The reference to one count instead of two counts appears to be a typographical error as the overwhelming evidence in the record reflects Respondent was charged with two counts of the crime. The typographical error does not impact the outcome of this matter. sexually stimulating visual or auditory material; active participation and successful completion of a sexual offense treatment program; and continued psychiatric treatment, including medication management and therapy. Respondent completed the terms of his sentence and probation early. There is no dispute that Respondent pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense. The question remains whether that crime relates to the practice of psychology. The Department’s expert, Dr. Carolyn Stimel, answered this question in the affirmative. Expert Testimony Dr. Stimel, a practicing psychologist, has been licensed in the state of Florida for more than 30 years. Dr. Stimel has been board certified by the American Board of Professional Psychology and Forensic Psychology since 1989. Forensic psychology is the intersection between psychology and criminal legal matters. In addition to her private practice, Dr. Stimel works with the Jimmy Ryce program for sexually violent predators. Dr. Stimel’s responsibilities working with the Jimmy Ryce program includes assessing whether a person should be tried as a sexually violent predator. Through her work with the program, she has evaluated and treated sex offenders for criminal cases. In preparation for her testimony, Dr. Stimel relied upon the pertinent evaluations, interview of Respondent by Agent Sorokin, criminal records, and relevant depositions. More importantly, she also relied upon her observation of the full hearing to formulate her opinion. Dr. Stimel opined that downloading child pornography as related to the practice of psychology requires trust, good judgment and integrity, ability to establish appropriate boundaries, ability to control impulses, and ability to behave appropriately and responsibly. Dr. Stimel’s opinion of Respondent’s poor judgment did not change when she learned that Respondent had voluntarily deleted the pornographic images from his phone. In addition to the serious judgment lapse, Respondent’s behavior was a significant breach of public trust. As stated by Dr. Stimel, the qualities essential to the practice of psychology include good judgment and trustworthiness. Respondent’s poor judgment and an inability to be boundary-observant poses a high risk of Respondent engaging in further sexual offenses involving children. Respondent’s viewing child pornography, even if for a brief moment, demonstrates a disregard for a vulnerable population of society. Respondent contends that he should be able to continue practicing psychology because he does not pose a threat to children. To support his argument that he does not pose a threat to children, Respondent offered the testimony of Dr. Duncan Bowen, a licensed mental health counselor. On October 9, 2018, Dr. Bowen performed a risk assessment of Respondent and concluded that Respondent does not pose a risk of emotional or physical harm to children. On April 8, 2020, Dr. Bowen performed a psychosexual evaluation of Respondent and opined that Respondent may return to the practice of psychology safely. While Dr. Bowen has conducted evaluations to determine the ability of professionals to return to work, namely law enforcement, aviators, and department of defense personnel, he has not conducted evaluations of healthcare professionals. Moreover, given that Dr. Bowen is not a licensed psychologist, Dr. Bowen could not offer an opinion on whether Respondent’s crime(s) relates to the practice of psychology. Respondent saw Dr. James Hunt for psychiatric sexual offender treatment, which was ordered by the court. Dr. Hunt was also Respondent’s treating psychiatrist before the court ordered treatment. Respondent admitted to Dr. Hunt that he looked at child pornography and indicated that he committed the act because of obsessive compulsive disorder (“OCD”). Dr. Hunt ultimately concluded that Respondent had a compulsion to check the website depicting child pornography as a symptom of OCD and prescribed Luvox to treat the compulsive behaviors. Dr. Hunt testified that Respondent should remain on Luvox indefinitely; otherwise, he would risk viewing child pornography again. Testimony of Lay Witnesses While Respondent contends that he should still be permitted to continue to practice psychology because he only treats adults; that factor does not erase the presence of children from the practice setting. For instance, Dr. Stewart, Respondent’s employer and a licensed clinical social worker, treats patients as young as five years old. As a result, there are times children or adolescents may be in the waiting room before their appointment. In addition, a psychology license is a general license that is not restricted to any specific group of people. The licensee may see children or may be retained to see a family that includes children. Although, Dr. Stewart testified he had no concerns about the safety of patients, he installed a security system after Respondent began working at his office. He also testified that he believed Respondent could continue to practice psychology safely. However, Dr. Stewart is not a licensed psychologist so his opinion does not have much weight, if any, on Respondent’s ability to practice safely. In support of Respondent, Dr. Stewart testified that Respondent is well thought of in the community and is gentle with patients. As expected, Respondent’s parents, Bruce and Helene Levinsky, also offered support. Mrs. Levinsky described her son as being compassionate and empathetic toward others. She also testified that he would not be a danger to children. Respondent’s father, Bruce Levinsky, joined his wife in support of their son by testifying that he is a caring psychologist. Allegations of Coerced Confession At hearing, Respondent testified that his confession was coerced by Agent Sorokin, and he actually did not download child pornography. Respondent testified that Agent Sorokin coerced him to give a false confession through the use of intimidating tactics. Agent Sorokin did not testify in person and, thus, was unable to defend himself against Respondent’s claims at the hearing. However, the undersigned carefully observed the demeanor of Respondent as he testified and carefully reviewed the record regarding all aspects of this case, including the circumstances surrounding the alleged false confession. Based on the circumstances, namely the recorded interview; identifying information associating Respondent with the phone used to upload the images; Respondent’s motivation to cast the events in a particular light;5 and the number of admissions Respondent made to others besides Agent Sorokin, it is determined that Respondent’s claim of a coerced confession is not supported by the record.6 Likewise, the undersigned finds Respondent’s denial that he downloaded child pornography is not credible. Respondent’s denial was not credited based on more credible evidence discovered during the criminal investigation. Furthermore, his credibility was diminished by deceptive testimony at hearing. For example, Respondent testified that he was not aware that he had a right to an attorney during a criminal interrogation and claimed that Agent Sorokin did not read him his Miranda rights. When confronted with the transcript of the interview, he acknowledged that Agent Sorokin read his Miranda rights. The undersigned’s review of the transcript and audio recording revealed that the agent read Miranda rights to Respondent and Respondent acknowledged his understanding of those rights verbally and in writing by initialing the card with Miranda warnings. 5 Dr. Stimel testified that most people accused of a sexual offense attempt to minimize, deny, or rationalize their actions. 6 In his recorded statement, he verbally admitted to downloading and viewing the pornographic images of two prepubescent girls. He wrote an open letter apologizing to the persons depicted in the images. During his visits with Dr. Hunt, he admitted that he viewed the images due to OCD and there was no reference to him being coerced into the statement until a year later. For instance, on July 11, 2018, Respondent reported to Dr. Hunt that he had to watch [child pornography] because of his OCD. In another example, Respondent admitted to Dr. Bowen and Dr. Hunt, who were tasked with evaluating him, that he downloaded and viewed child pornography, and he later testified at hearing that he did not provide truthful information to those evaluators. Despite the Respondent’s contention that Agent Sorokin coerced him to confess, the alleged false confession has not been considered with respect to whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The undersigned is charged with assessing whether the crime to which Respondent pled nolo contendere relates to the practice of psychology, and not to try the underlying criminal case (nor does the Division have jurisdiction to reconsider the findings of those criminal allegations in this proceeding). The evidence of record contains clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s crime relates to the practice of psychology. In addition to the other findings herein, the undersigned finds Respondent did not access the two images while physically at work and the images did not depict a known patient, or family member of a patient. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. Ultimate Findings of Fact Dr. Stimel credibly opined that the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor relates to the practice of psychology because it demonstrates that the psychologist lacks good judgment and trustworthiness, and lacks an inability to be boundary-observant. The undersigned also finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent’s plea of nolo contendere to two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor by downloading child pornography, is related to the practice of psychology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Psychology enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license to practice psychology. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 23rd day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jonathan Rose, Esquire Jonathan Rose, P.A. 201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1017 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ryan Sandy, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Allen Hall, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a real estate sales associate, holding Florida license number 3055247. Respondent is currently employed in real estate sales. On May 9, 2004, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a violation of Subsection 800.04(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and to a violation of Subsection 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 42-2003-CF-002535, Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County, Florida. Subsection 800.04(4)(b), Florida Statutes, classifies commission of sexual activity with a person under 16 years of age as a second-degree felony. Subsection 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, classifies knowingly using a computer service to solicit sexual activity with a child as a third-degree felony. Respondent entered the guilty pleas upon advice of legal counsel and in order to avoid a public trial. Respondent was ordered to pay a $500 fine and various court costs, and to serve 100 hours of community service. Although a sentence of one day in jail is noted in the court documents, the same documents credit Respondent with one day of incarceration, and according to Respondent, he spent no time in jail. Respondent was classified as a sex offender, subject to the requirements applicable to the classification, and was placed on probation for a period of seven years. The court records note that Respondent's sentence was a downward departure from sentencing guidelines. The court withheld an adjudication of guilt. At the administrative hearing, Respondent provided the only testimony directly related to the events that resulted in the criminal charges. At some point prior to 2004, Respondent joined a computer dating service in order to meet people for social activities and possible relationships. The dating service charged a monthly fee of $20. Users could post personal information and engage in online chats with other users. In joining the service, Respondent was required to attest to the fact that he was at least 18 years of age, and he presumed that other persons utilizing the service would be subject to the same requirement. While using the online chat service, Respondent became acquainted with another individual, and the two decided to meet. Based on the online discussion, Respondent believed that the other individual was of college age. Respondent drove to an unidentified location where he met and picked up the individual. Respondent testified that the person's appearance, including facial hair and the clothing worn, gave no indication that the individual was not of legal age. Respondent testified that he had "one date" with the individual. Several days after the meeting, Respondent was contacted by an investigator from Marion County who advised him that the individual was under the legal age of consent. There was no reliable evidence offered at the hearing as to the actual age of the other individual at the time the events occurred. Pursuant to the investigator's request, Respondent met with the investigator in Marion County, and was subsequently charged with the cranial offenses referenced herein. According to Respondent's probation officer, at the time of the hearing Respondent was in compliance with and was exceeding the terms of his probation. Respondent participates in mental health counseling with a therapist who has 20 years of counseling experience, including 18 years working with sex offenders. Respondent participates in weekly group therapy and in individual counseling and was described as a cooperative client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reprimanding Respondent William J. Flanagan, III. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1989, Petitioner, Mark Cleveland, a male, applied through Job Service of Florida, for employment as a telemarketer with Respondent, Sears Roebuck and Company at the Sears store located in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner had several years of sales experience with at least six months of experience in telemarketing. He also had a good speaking voice as evidenced by the fact that he is currently employed as a disc jockey at a local radio station. Clearly, Respondent was qualified for the telemarketing position. The telemarketer position would enable Petitioner to earn approximately $85.00 a week or $365.50 a month. The telemarketing section at the Pensacola Sears store consisted of virtually all women with perhaps three or four rare male telemarketers. Petitioner had two separate interviews with two different Sears employees responsible for filling the telemarketing positions. During the Petitioner's interviews with the two Sears employees, Petitioner was repeatedly questioned on whether he could work with all women or mostly all women and be supervised by women. Petitioner assured his interviewers that he could since he grew up with six sisters and in general liked working with women. Petitioner left the interview with the information that he would be hired after another supervisor reviewed the applications and that he would be called once the supervisor's review was complete. After several days, Petitioner, being excited about what he thought was going to be his new job, called one of the two women who interviewed him. He was informed that the telemarketing positions had been filled. Later that same day Petitioner discovered that the positions had, in fact, not been filled and that he had been told an untruth. The telemarketing positions were eventually filled by women. Petitioner remained out of work for approximately four months before he was hired as a telemarketer by the Pensacola News Journal. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on August 27, 1991, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent did not respond to the Notice. On October 10, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent's address and acknowledgment of this litigation was confirmed when Respondent filed its answer to the Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Even though Respondent received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Respondent did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Petitioner was present at the hearing. The Respondent did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that it would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Respondent to appear, the hearing was commenced. As a consequence of Respondent's failure to appear, no evidence rebutting Petitioner's facts were introduced into evidence at the hearing and specifically no evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose was introduced at the hearing. 1/ Petitioner has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on his sex, given the fact that Sears tried to mislead him into believing the telemarketing positions had been filled when they had not, the positions were all eventually filled by women and Sears' clear concern over Petitioner's ability to work with women. Such facts lead to the reasonable inference that Sears was engaging in an unlawful employment practice based on Respondent being a male, a protected class, in order to preserve a female work force in telemarketing. Such discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner is entitled to relief from that discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner was the subject of an illegal employment practice and awarding Petitioner $1,462.00 in backpay plus reasonable costs of $100.95 and an attorney's fee of $2,550.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Commission on January 22, 1981, and was issued certificate number 02-026742. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been employed as a law enforcement officer with the City of Pompano Beach Police Department. Cocaine is a schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, possession of cocaine is a felony. In accordance with a collective bargaining agreement, the Police Benevolent Association, as the bargaining unit for its members, agreed to random drug and alcohol testing for all police officers employed by the City of Pompano Beach Police Department. Pursuant to that agreement, Respondent was requested to, and agreed to submit a urine sample for testing on September 24, 1992. In order to coordinate the testing, the City of Pompano Beach had contracted with a private company, Worker's Compensation Medical Center (WCMC), which was to conduct the collection of urine samples for testing purposes. On the testing dates selected, WCMC employees set up collection facilities at the police station. Ms. Bobkier, a WCMC employee with four and a half years experience, was responsible for collecting the urine sample from Respondent. According to Ms. Bobkier, employees from WCMC set up tables at the police station during the hours of 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 24, 1992. On that date, Respondent presented for testing, completed the paperwork to accompany the sample, went into the bathroom designated for use, and returned a sample to the collection table. This sample was identified as DO482663-5. As she did with all samples collected that date, Ms. Bobkier then placed the sample into a holding cooler until it was transferred back to the WCMC office. Before transferring the samples back to the office, they were cataloged and inventoried. Once back at WCMC, a courier from the testing center, National Health Laboratories (NHL) picked up the samples at approximately 7:15 p.m. on the evening of September 24, 1992. The courier presumably took the samples to NHL where they were given assension numbers by a NHL employee. Neither the courier nor the "assension" employee testified at the hearing. The assension number assigned to sample DO482663-5 was 3303217-5. According to Dr. Donald R. Stalons, the director of NHL, testing on assension sample no. 3303217-5 was performed on September 24, 1992 at approximately 2:45 p.m. NHL is a clinical laboratory fully licensed by the State of Florida and the federal government and is authorized to perform forensic toxicological testing. According to the test results for assension sample no. 3303217-5, such sample was positive for cocaine metabolite. The "assension number" referred to above was the control number assigned to the sample for testing purposes. The sample retained that number throughout the testing process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1994, 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 29th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3695 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 12, and 21 are accepted. Paragraphs 13 through 20 are rejected to the extent that they conclude the sample was Respondent's. The Petitioner failed to prove the sample was Respondent's as his sample was not transported to the testing center until approximately 7:15 p.m. on September 24, 1992. The sample tested by NHL purported to be Respondent's sample was tested at 2:45 p.m. that same day. This would be physically impossible. To the extent that the paragraphs correctly outline the testing procedures and results at NHL, they could be accepted but are irrelevant as the sample could not have been Respondent's. Paragraph 22 is rejected as it is not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 23 through 32 are rejected as irrelevant and outside the scope of the administrative complaint. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted in a form which can be addressed by either accepting or rejecting a statement of fact. Otherwise, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Lober Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 W. George Allen One River Plaza, Suite 701 305 S. Andrews Avenue P.O. Box 14738 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
