The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on July 1, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number 33-81-500-00. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and was assigned to work with inmates in the county jail. In the course of his duties, Respondent Parks became acquainted with a young female inmate, Melissa Sue Watson. After her release from jail, the Respondent continued to see the woman socially. As part of their relationship, the Respondent would occasionally give the woman money or anything else she requested that he was able to provide for her. While the Respondent and the young woman eventually became sexually intimate, the money was not given to her in direct exchange for sexual services. Instead, the money and other requested items were bestowed as gifts to demonstrate his affection and to assure that she would continue to allow a married man of his years to court her. Due to the fact that Respondent's wife was in charge of the family finances, the sums of money given to the young woman were sparse. These gifts amounted to little more that the Respondent's spare change and lunch money. After the relationship progressed to the stage where the parties had become sexually intimate, the young woman asked the Respondent to get her some marijuana. She was provided with the pipe and marijuana the Respondent had confiscated from his teenaged son. The Respondent smoked the marijuana with the young woman. During her relationship with the Respondent, the young woman had an ongoing relationship of a different kind with another member of the Collier County's Sheriff Department. Melissa Sue Watson was a confidential informer for Linda Leis, a narcotics investigator with the Vice-Intelligence-Narcotics Unit (VIN Unit). She assisted Ms. Leis in the arrest of several narcotics violators prior to her report that Respondent Parks had given her money and marijuana in exchange for sex. Ms. Watson gave the investigator the pipe used to smoke the marijuana. A field test confirmed that it had contained marijuana. The young woman was told to arrange an assignation with the Respondent so his actions could be documented and an arrest made if the allegations were well-founded. Pursuant to instructions from Ms. Leis, the woman placed a telephone call to the Respondent which was recorded by the sheriff's department. The Respondent was asked to join Ms. Watson at White's Motel after work. Ms. Watson requested that the Respondent bring money and marijuana because she needed funds and wanted "to get high." In response to her invitation, Respondent told Ms. Watson that he would meet her and that he had ten dollars she could have. However, he was unable to provide marijuana because he did not know where to get it. When she inquired as to where he got the marijuana in the pipe, he teased her by withholding the information. Eventually, after she prodded him for an answer, he agreed with her suggestion that he had grown the marijuana in order to stop the inquiry. He told her there was no more and closed the topic. In fact, the Respondent had not grown the marijuana. As mentioned previously, he confiscated it from his son. When the Respondent arrived at the hotel, members of the VIN Unit had already installed listening and recording devices in the room. They waited in the adjoining room to take pictures and make an arrest once it was determined that Respondent Parks had given Melissa Sue Watson money for sex. During the motel room conversations between Respondent and Ms. Watson, the Respondent expressed concern about Ms. Watson's failure to appear in court that morning on a new pending criminal charge. She feigned surprise about having been on the court docket and stressed her need for money. She teased the Respondent during their foreplay that she had something for him if he had the money he said he was bringing to her. Because the Respondent was expected home shortly, he handed Ms. Watson the money he brought to give to her when she asked to see it. Based upon their prior relationship and the contents of the recorded conversations, the giving of the money and the sexual activity between the parties were concurrent actions that were not connected to each other. They occurred at the same time because the parties were involved in a clandestine, adulterous affair that allowed them to see each other on an infrequent basis. Once the Respondent stripped down to his underwear in order to proceed further with the sex play, members of the VIN Unit entered the room and placed the Respondent under arrest. After he waived his right to receive the Miranda warning, the Respondent admitted to having had sex with Melissa Sue Watson in the past and having smoked marijuana with her that he had provided at her request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of unlawfully, delivering less than twenty grams of cannabis to another person and of constructive possession as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the Administrative Complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having engaged in prostitution with another person, as set forth in Paragraph 2(c) of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's certificate as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6766 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #7. 4. Accepted. See HO #7. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #8. 7. Accepted. See HO #9. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. See HO #10. 10. Accepted. See HO #10. 11. Accepted. See HO #10. 12. Accepted. See HO #11. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12-#13. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Al Beatty, Qualified Representative c/o Clyde W. Parks 5226 Jennings Street Naples, Florida 33962 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Brenda Barnett, was employed as a detention deputy by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, and deemed to be a classified employee. Respondent was initially hired in 1991, and worked as a steward in the jail kitchen facilities before becoming a detention deputy. Respondent is a state-certified sworn correctional officer and, in her capacity as a deputy detention officer, is charged with exercising direction, dominion, and control over incarcerated inmates. Prior to her employment as a detention deputy and as a condition thereto, Respondent received extensive training. Such training includes nearly 500 hours of academy training sanctioned by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Also, once employed, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office provides detention deputies with in-service training and forty hours of formal training annually. Respondent received such additional training through in- service while employed as a detention deputy. In March 1995, Respondent Barnett began a casual relationship with an inmate, Nelson Alas. Inmate Alas was incarcerated at the same facility where Respondent Barnett worked. At first, Respondent exchanged pleasantries such as "hello" or "good bye" with Inmate Alas. Inmate Alas would compliment Respondent. Within days, Inmate Alas attempted to pass a note to Respondent Barnett. Initially, Respondent refused to accept the notes. However, within ten days, Respondent accepted a note from Inmate Alas and soon began writing letters to Inmate Alas. Between the period, March 1995 and April 1995, Respondent wrote at least twenty-one letters to Inmate Alas. During this time Inmate Alas also wrote letters to Respondent. At one point Inmate Alas gave Respondent a photograph of himself. The letters written by Respondent to Inmate Alas were romantic in nature, and many of them spoke of her feelings for and attraction to Inmate Alas. Respondent has never denied and has, in fact, admitted writing these letters to Inmate Alas. Respondent further admitted that on one occasion during her involvement with Inmate Alas, she kissed him. Respondent's actions came to the attention of Detention Deputy David Howsare when an inmate told him that there was communication between Respondent and Inmate Alas, including the exchange of notes and allegations of physical contact. Detention Deputy Howsare reported this through his chain of command, and a search of Inmate Alas' cell was conducted. The search uncovered letters that had been written to Inmate Alas. At about the same time the complaint was made to Detention Deputy Howsare, a complaint regarding Respondent was called in to the PCSO Inspection Bureau. The complaint was made by Cynthia Hadley, who identified herself as the girlfriend of Inmate Alas. Ms. Hadley indicated that her boyfriend, Inmate Alas, was having an affair with a detention deputy and had written several letters to the detention deputy. The matter was referred to the Administrative Investigation Unit and Sgt. Daniel Buckingham and Sgt. Robert Kidd were assigned to investigate the complaint. During the investigation, Sgt. Buckingham sought to ascertain the identity of the person who wrote the letters that were found in Inmate Alas' cell. In this regard, Sgt. Buckingham had the letters sent out for processing for latent fingerprints. After this analysis revealed only the fingerprints of Inmate Alas, Respondent was required to provide a handwriting exemplar. The handwriting exemplar was sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for analysis. The result confirmed that Respondent was the author of at least fifteen of the letters. Also, as part of the investigation, interviews were conducted with Inmate Alas, Ms. Hadley, and Respondent. The interview with Inmate Alas' was unsuccessful in that he was evasive, refused to answer many questions, and was generally uncooperative. During her interview with Sgt. Kidd and Sgt. Buckingham, Respondent admitted improper contact with Inmate Alas, including writing letters to him and receiving a photograph of him. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigatory file was given to Respondent's Chain-of-Command Board for review. Based on its review, the Chain-of-Command Board unanimously found that Respondent had violated rules and regulations of the PCSO relating to loyalty, association with prisoners, and knowledge of and obedience to rules and regulations. As a detention deputy, Respondent's actions of fraternizing with an inmate compromised her position and may have lead to the erosion of security. Also, such undue familiarity has the potential for jeopardizing the security of the institution and the safety of the public as well as that of Respondent's own family. Under the PCSO General Orders B-15 and C-1, as amended in February 1994, the disciplinary point calculation for Respondent Barnett was seventy-five points. The range of discipline for seventy-five (75) points is from a 10- day suspension to termination. The Chain-of-Command voted unanimously to recommend termination. Sheriff Rice concurred with the recommendation and terminated Respondent on June 20, 1995. Throughout the investigation and hearing, Respondent has admitted that she engaged in the conduct which is the subject of the termination notice. Respondent explained that her involvement with Inmate Alas occurred during a time that she was experiencing marital problems. In Respondent's opinion, these problems were exacerbated when she found a diary belonging to her husband in which he stated that he no longer loved her. According to Respondent, due to these problems, she was extremely vulnerable at that time. However, Respondent indicated that after the incidents which are the subject of this proceeding, she and her husband went to counseling and, presently, their marriage is strong. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been investigated or disciplined by the PCSO.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Brenda Barnett, guilty of conduct unbecoming a public servant; violating PCSO Rules C-1, V, A, (002) and (011) and Rule C-1, V, C, (063); and upholding Respondent's termination from employment as a deputy detention officer with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0019 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-4. Accepted. 5-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7-8. Accepted but subordinate to result reached. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate to result reached. 14-20. Rejected as conclusions of law and/or legal arguments. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence A. Jacobs, Esquire Feathersound Place 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 2 Clearwater, Florida 34622 James M. Craig, Esquire ALLEY AND ALLEY/FORD AND HARRISON 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Copies furnished continued: Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 34649-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was incarcerated at Union Correctional Institition within the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. On or about March 1, 1983, Petitioner submitted a request to be admitted to the Mutual Participation Program, also known as ''Contract Parole." Thereafter, Petitioner was considered for eligibility for that program by a classification specialist employed by the Department of Corrections and a parole examiner employed by the Parole and Probation Commission. On April 22, 1983, these two officials recommended against Petitioner's request based on Petitioner's "extensive criminal history," "history of drug abuse in the past," his escape from minimum custody while a patient at the Veteran's Administration hospital in Gainesville in December of 1979, and his involvement in a prison disturbance at Marion Correctional Institute in 1978. Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative code, entitled Mutual participation Program was first adopted by Respondent on September 10, 1981. Respondent conducted rulemaking proceedings in 1982 which resulted in amendments to various portions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code. These amendments became effective October 1, 1982. During the course of the rulemaking proceeding, Respondent published notice of the proposed changes in the Florida Administrative Weekly and, in addition, forwarded copies of the proposed changes to all Department of Corrections offices, including each correctional institution. The record in this cause is unclear as to whether these proposed changes were ever posted in the law library or other office at Union Correctional Institution. Petitioner contends that he was never afforded notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, and library officials at Union Correctional Institution do not specifically recall ever having seen such proposed amendments. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it could be concluded with any certainty whether any of the provisions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, either as it was initially adopted or as it was amended effective October 1, 1982, were applied to Petitioner's request for participation in that program.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the "[s]tipulated [f]acts" contained in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation,2 the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since February 18, 2003, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 229286. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (Department) as a correctional officer and assigned to the South Florida Reception Center (SFRC), a "transient institution for inmates that are [transferring] from one facility to another." Sergeant Shirley McLain is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, employed by the Department as a correctional officer and assigned to SFRC. Respondent and Sergeant McLain have known each other since the time they attended the correctional academy together. In August of 2005, Respondent was responsible for supervising inmates working on the "outside grounds" of SFRC, while Sergeant McLain oversaw the operations of the SFRC property room, where personal items taken from inmates are brought and stored until they are returned or other otherwise disposed of. Sergeant McLain "never supervised" Respondent. In August of 2005, Ricardo Bigio was an inmate at SFRC. Shortly after his arrival at the facility, he had a watch and chain confiscated from him. He was permitted to send these items home. Two days later, Sergeant McLain found Inmate Bigio in possession of another watch and another chain. Upon being told by Inmate Bigio, in response to her questioning, that he had obtained these items "through visitation," Sergeant McLain informed him, since these items were brought into the institution "illegally," they were "now contraband" and he could not have them "sen[t] . . . home." At the suggestion of a fellow inmate, Inmate Bigio approached Respondent and asked her to "speak to Sergeant McLain to see if she would let [him] send [this confiscated] jewelry home." During their conversation, Respondent mentioned to Inmate Bigio that "her dad needed a car." Inmate Bigio told Respondent that, if Respondent spoke to Sergeant McLain about his jewelry, he "would be able to send her to somebody [he knew in the used car sales business] to get a good deal on a car" for her father. Respondent agreed to help Inmate Bigio by speaking to Sergeant McLain about sending his jewelry home. Respondent and Inmate Bigio then went to Sergeant McLain's office, where Respondent asked Sergeant McLain if she would "let[] [Inmate Bigio] send this chain and this watch home," an act that that Respondent believed was within Sergeant McLain's power as the officer in charge of the SFRC property room. Sergeant McLain responded to Respondent's request in the negative. Respondent said, "Okay," and then left with Inmate Bigio. Respondent returned to Sergeant McLain's office with Inmate Bigio "off and on" for the next three or four days to repeat her request that Sergeant McLain allow Inmate Bigio to send his jewelry home. On each occasion, in response to the request, Sergeant McLain reiterated that the jewelry "was contraband and [therefore Inmate Bigio] could not send it home." On August 10, 2005, approximately a week after she had first raised the matter with Sergeant McLain, Respondent once again asked Sergeant McLain to permit Inmate Bigio to send his jewelry home. This time, in making her request, Respondent revealed her motivation for interceding on Inmate Bigio's behalf. She explained to Sergeant McLain that, if Sergeant McLain granted the request and allowed Inmate Bigio to send his jewelry home, Inmate Bigio would make the necessary arrangements with his "people [who] own[ed] a car lot" to enable Respondent to purchase for her father a $5,000.00 car for only $2,000.00. Respondent provided this explanation as to why she was taking up Inmate Bigio's cause in the hopes that Sergeant McLain's having this information would make Sergeant McLain more inclined to grant the permission Respondent was requesting on Inmate Bigio's behalf. Sergeant McLain was taken aback that Respondent would strike such a deal with an inmate. She advised Respondent, as she had in response to Respondent's previous requests, that Inmate Bigio would not be permitted to send his jewelry home.3 Sergeant McLain subsequently reported the incident to the SFRC assistant warden. Inspector Arlethia Clark with the Department's Inspector's General Office subsequently investigated the matter. As part of her investigation, Inspector Clark interviewed Respondent on November 17, 2005. Respondent was placed under oath for the interview. Respondent told Inspector Clark that Sergeant McLain, in describing her August 10, 2005, conversation with Respondent, had "twisted the story around." Respondent knowingly made the false claim that she had gone to Sergeant McLain merely to report the illicit offer that Inmate Bigio had made and to seek guidance from Sergeant McLain "as a supervisor" as to what to do, not to persuade Sergeant McLain to allow Inmate Bigio to send his jewelry home so that she would be able to purchase a car for her father at a discount (which, in fact, contrary to Respondent's sworn statement to Inspector Clark, was the actual reason she had gone to Sergeant McLain). Inspector Clark also interviewed Inmate Bigio and Sergeant McLain. Based on the findings of her investigation, Inspector Clark "found that there was bartering between, or an attempt to barter between," Inmate Bigio and Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegations One and Two and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2007.
Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
The Issue This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, for juvenile detention care. The challenging counties are political subdivisions of the State of Florida and are non-fiscally constrained counties subject to the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686. The challenging counties are substantially affected by the application of Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.010 through 63G-1.018, including the Proposed Rules. It was stipulated that the challenging counties’ alleged substantial interests are of the type these proceedings are designed to protect. Petitioner, Florida Association of Counties (“FAC”), is a statewide association and not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under chapter 617, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of representing county government in Florida and protecting, promoting, and improving the mutual interests of all counties in Florida. All of the 67 counties in Florida are members of FAC, and the Proposed Rules regarding Detention Cost Share affect all counties. Of the 67 counties in Florida, 35 are considered non- fiscally constrained, and are billed by the Department for their respective costs of secure detention care, as determined by the Department; 27 of these counties are participating alongside FAC in these proceedings. The subject matter of these proceedings is clearly within FAC’s scope of interest and activity, and a substantial number of FAC’s members are adversely affected by the Proposed Rules. The challenging counties, and FAC, participated in the various rulemaking proceedings held by the Department related to the Proposed Rules, including rule hearings held on June 6, 2014, and August 5, 2014. Rule Making The initial version of the Proposed Rules was issued, and a Rule Development Workshop was held on March 28, 2014. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments on the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the Rule Development Workshop. On May 15, 2014, the Department published Proposed Rules 63G-1.011, 1.013, 1.016, and 1.017 in the Florida Administrative Register. In that Notice, the Department scheduled a hearing on the Proposed Rules for June 6, 2014. On June 6, 2014, a rulemaking hearing was held on the Proposed Rules. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments to the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the hearing. A supplemental rulemaking hearing was held on August 5, 2014. Again, numerous challenging counties submitted comments regarding the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the supplemental rulemaking hearing. On September 5, 2014, the Department advertised its Notice of Change as to the Proposed Rules. Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding timely filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rules. A statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) was not originally prepared by the Department. In the rulemaking proceedings before the Department, Bay County submitted a good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative. In its proposal, Bay County asserted that the Department’s own stipulations signed by the agency are competent substantial evidence that the agency has a “less costly alternative” to the approach taken in the Proposed Rules, by assessing the costs of all detention days for juveniles on probation status to the state, and not the counties.2/ As Bay County noted in the proposal, the Department previously had agreed to assume all of the cost of detention days occurring after a disposition of probation. Following the June 6, 2014, hearing, the Department issued a SERC for the Proposed Rules. Ultimately, the Department rejected the lower cost regulatory alternative proposed by the counties “because it is inconsistent with the relevant statute (section 985.686, F.S.), fails to substantially accomplish the statutory objective, and would render the Department unable to continue to operate secure detention.” The Implemented Statute The Proposed Rules purport to implement section 985.686, which provides that each county is responsible for paying the costs of providing detention care “for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition.” § 985.686(3), Fla. Stat. The statute establishes a cost-sharing system whereby each non-fiscally constrained county is required to be individually provided with an estimate of “its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition,” based on “the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department.” § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Each county must pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. At the end of the state fiscal year, “[a]ny difference between the estimated costs and actual costs shall be reconciled.” Id. The Department is responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements and is authorized to adopt rules as set forth in section 985.686(11). In general, the Proposed Rules provide definitions including for pre and postdisposition, provide for calculating the estimated costs, for monthly reporting, and for annual reconciliation. Specific changes will be discussed in detail below. The complete text of the Challenged Rules, showing the proposed amendments (in strike-through and underlined format) is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Prior Rule Challenge On July 16, 2006, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.002, 63G-1.004, 63G-1.007, and 63G-1.008, among others, setting forth the definitions and procedures for calculating the costs as between the state and the various counties. These rules were repealed as of July 6, 2010, and in their place, the Department adopted rules 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017. Although the previous rules defined “final court disposition,” for purposes of determining the counties’ responsibility for providing the costs of secure detention, the 2010 rules replaced this with a definition of “commitment,” so that the state was only responsible for days occurring after a disposition of commitment. This had the effect of transferring the responsibility for tens of thousands of days of detention from the state to the counties. In addition, the 2010 rules failed to provide a process by which the counties were only charged their respective actual costs of secure detention. In 2012, several counties challenged rules 63G-1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because these rules replaced the statutory dividing line for the costs of secure detention with “commitment,” and because the rules resulted in the overcharging of counties for their respective actual costs of secure detention. On July 17, 2012, a Final Order was issued by the undersigned which agreed with the counties and found that the rules were an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Okaloosa Cnty., et al. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012). On June 5, 2013, this ruling was affirmed on appeal. Dep’t of Juv. Just. v. Okaloosa Cnty., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“2012 Rule Challenge”). The Department’s Response to the 2012 Rule Challenge No changes to the Department’s practices were made after the Rule Challenge Final Order was released in 2012. Rather, changes were not made until after the Rule Challenge decision was affirmed on appeal in June 2013. Shortly after the opinion was released by the First District Court of Appeal, the Department modified its policies and practices to conform with its interpretation of the requirements of that opinion, and informed the counties that “all days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment belong to the state.” At this time, the Department determined that “by their nature all VOPs [violations of probation] are attached to charges that have a qualified disposition and thus are a state pay.” In response to the appellate court decision, the Department implemented and published to the counties its interpretation that the counties were only responsible for detention days occurring prior to a final court disposition, and were not responsible for detention days occurring after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or probation, or is waiting for release after a dismissal of the charge. A statement to this effect was developed by the Department with input from multiple staff, and was to be a “clear bright line” setting “clear parameters” and a “final determination” that the Department could share with those outside the agency. However, no rules were developed by the Department at this time. In July 2013, the Department revised its estimate to the counties for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013-14 from what had been issued (previously). This revised estimate incorporated the Department’s analysis that included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed. The revised estimate also excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. At the time of the 2012 Rule Challenge, several counties had pending administrative challenges to the Department’s reconciliations for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. In September 2013, the Department issued recalculations of its final reconciliation statements to the counties for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The recalculations were based upon the Department’s revised policies and practices and included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youths in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and similarly excluded detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. This resulted in large overpayments from the non-fiscally constrained counties to the state for these fiscal years. These recalculations were not merely an internal exercise, but rather were intended to notify the counties what they had overpaid for the fiscal years at issue, and were published and made available to the counties and public at large on the Department’s website. In December 2013, the Department entered into stipulations of facts and procedure to resolve three separate administrative proceedings related to final reconciliation amounts for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. Those stipulations of facts and procedure included the following definitions: The parties agree that “Final Court Disposition” as contained in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and based on the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, means a disposition order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, including an order sentencing a juvenile to commitment to the Department, or other private or public institution as allowed by law, placing the juvenile on probation, or dismissing the charge. The parties further agree that a “Pre- dispositional Day” means any secure detention day occurring prior to the day on which a Final Court Disposition is entered. A pre- dispositional day does not include any secure detention day after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or placed on probation, or is waiting for release after dismissal of a charge. (Petitioner’s Ex. 26) In addition to the above stipulations, the Department also stipulated to its recalculated amounts for each of these years, resulting in large overpayments from the counties. However, the Department refused to provide credits for these overpayment amounts. In November and December 2013, the Department issued a final reconciliation statement and revised final reconciliation statement to the counties for FY 2012-13, which included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and likewise excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. Under the Department’s reconciliation statement for FY 2012-13, the counties were collectively funding approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the costs of secure juvenile detention. The Department also submitted its legislative budget request for FY 2014-15 in October 2013. This legislative budget request was based on the Department’s independent judgment as required by sections 216.011 and 216.023, Florida Statutes,3/ and excluded from the counties’ collective responsibility all detention days relating to a violation of probation, including for a new substantive law violation. The request provided that “the department may only bill the counties for youth whose cases have not had a disposition either to commitment or probation.” The request also notes a shift in the counties’ collective obligations from 73 percent of the total costs to 32 percent of these costs “in order to bring the budget split in line with the June 2013 ruling by the First District Court of Appeal.” Under this interpretation, the Department projected a $35.5 million deficiency in its budget for FY 13-14 and requested an $18.4 million appropriation for detention costs from the Legislature. This request was funded in the General Appropriations Act for 2014-15. The Department did not ask for additional funding for past years that had been challenged by the counties. At this same time, a projection for the deficit for FY 2014-15 was developed by the Department staff based on the same interpretation of the state’s responsibility for detention days. There was no objection from the Department’s Secretary or the Governor’s Office to this interpretation of the state’s responsibility. Change in Interpretation Re New Law Violation Fred Schuknecht, then - Chief of Staff of the Department, testified that in response to the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in June 2013, the Department adopted a broad interpretation of the ruling that final court disposition meant commitment, and also included all secure detention days incurred by probationers as postdisposition days. This included detention days for youths already on probation who committed new offenses and were then detained as a result of the new offense or because of the violation of probation resulting from the commission of the new offense. During the budgeting process for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year, the Department altered its interpretation of the 2012 Rule Challenge decision, and its newly-established practice relating to payment for all detention days involving probationers. The Department now proposes, through the challenged rules, to shift to the counties the responsibility for detention days occurring after a final court disposition of probation where there is a new law violation. Although the challengers assert that the changed interpretation was driven by the budget proposal submitted by the Governor’s Office in January 2014 (which did not utilize the Department’s prior interpretation) the Department specifically contends that it did not change its official position on this interpretation until the adoption of the state budget by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) in June 2014. While the Department stated it made its initial broad interpretation because it was “under the gun” to issue its cost sharing billing for FY 2013-2014 within two weeks of the appellate opinion, the Department continued to assert that interpretation in September 2013, when it published recalculations for FYs 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. Further, Mr. Schuknecht conceded that this interpretation had not changed at the time the Department’s legislative budget request was submitted in October 2013, or in November and December 2013, when the Department issued the reconciliation and revised reconciliation for FY 2012-2013. Likewise, this interpretation formed the basis for the stipulations signed by the counties and Department in December 2013. At hearing, testimony established that the Department’s interpretation that the state was responsible for all days of detention for probationers was formed after frequent discussions on this topic and with input from multiple staff involved in cost sharing, including Mr. Schuknecht (Director of Administration at that time), Vickie Harris (Budget Director), Mark Greenwald (Director of Research and Planning), the Chief of Staff, Deputy Secretary, the legal team, as well as the Department’s Secretary. For FY 2014-15, the Executive Office of the Governor proposed a recommended budget which was contrary to the Department’s initial interpretation, and included within the counties’ collective responsibility those detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation. This recommended budget proposed that the counties would be responsible for fifty-seven percent (57%) of the shared costs of secure detention, and that the state would be responsible for forty-three percent (43%). This is in contrast to the thirty- two percent (32%) the counties were paying under the Department’s initial interpretation of the Rule Challenge Decision. The Governor’s Office then asked the Department to amend its earlier submitted legislative budget request, to reflect the Governor’s budget because it wanted the Department’s request to match. Although the GAA for FY 2014-15 incorporated a cost- sharing split similar to that included in the Governor’s proposal, it differed from the governor’s budget recommendation. It was not until June 2014, when the GAA was adopted into law, that the Department asserts it officially changed positions. As stipulated by the parties, there is no language in the GAA for FY 2014-15 setting forth the policy behind the budget split for secure detention. The Proposed Rules differ from the Department’s initial interpretation of the requirements of the Rule Challenge decision and its earlier established policies and procedures regarding the same as implemented in June 2013, through at least early 2014. The interpretation set forth in the Proposed Rules results in a lessened budgetary impact on the state by shifting more detention days to the counties. At hearing, Mr. Schuknecht testified as to the rationale for the Department’s changed interpretation regarding the counties’ responsibility for detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation: Q. If you would, Mr. Schuknecht, please kind of talk about the highlights of that rule, and especially in relationship to the Court’s ruling in the previous rule challenge. A. Basically how we got here is, in June of 2013, the First DCA ruled basically supporting the – DOAH’s hearing, the final court disposition prior to that. Basically we determined the final court decision meant commitment. They said it can’t be just commitment. So at that time we took the broadest interpretation as well will actually include all probationers as part of the final court disposition and they would be post-disposition days. Subsequent to that, in effect, through the Governor’s Office as well as the Legislature, as well as ourselves, we realized basically by doing that we are including probationers with new offenses as post-disposition cases which, in effect, makes no sense. It’s logical that they be pre- disposition cases because there is no disposition on those cases with new offenses. Plus probationers would only be in detention because they have new cases. They wouldn’t be there otherwise. So, in fact, that’s how we – so that’s the main change in the rule, in effect, defining what pre-disposition means. Mr. Schuknecht’s explanation for the Department’s changed interpretation is consistent with the explanation given by Jason Welty, the Department’s previous Chief of Staff, during the June 6, 2014, Workshop, that “the Department’s original interpretation was, quite frankly, in error.” Cost of Detention Days for Juveniles on Probation The Challengers contend that all days in detention served by a juvenile on probation are the responsibility of the state, and not the counties. Accordingly, the Challengers contest the Department’s Proposed Rules which assign responsibility for detention days of juveniles with new law violations to the counties, and not the state. Much of the testimony and argument at the hearing focused on the Department’s definitions for predisposition and postdisposition, and how these definitions apply as to youth on probation status with the Department. These definitions are crucial, as they relate to how the costs are split amongst the state and the counties. Only the costs of predisposition detention days may be billed to the counties under section 985.686. Final court disposition is specifically defined by the Proposed Rules as the “decision announced by the court at the disposition hearing” including “commitment, probation, and dismissal of charges.” “Predisposition” is further defined as the “period of time a youth is in detention care prior to entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(14). “Postdisposition” on the other hand, means “the period of time a youth is in detention care after entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15). However, the definitions do not stop with this general language. Proposed Rule sections 63G-1.011(14)(b) and (15)(b) provide that it is the counties’ responsibility to fund the costs for days when a youth is on probation and is charged with a new law violation. These definitions are implemented through the Proposed Rules relating to the estimate and reconciliation processes. The Department argues that youth who are on probation and commit new offenses may be held in secure detention for the new offense but cannot be legally held in secure detention on the underlying violation of probation. However, the Department’s position would appear to be counter to the express language of several statutory provisions. Section 985.439(4) provides in relevant part: Upon the child’s admission, or if the court finds after a hearing that the child has violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court shall enter an order revoking, modifying, or continuing probation or postcommitment probation. In each such case, the court shall enter a new disposition order and, in addition to the sanctions set forth in this section, may impose any sanction the court could have imposed at the original disposition hearing. If the child is found to have violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court may: Place the child in a consequence unit in that judicial circuit, if available, for up to 5 days for a first violation and up to 15 days for a second or subsequent violation. Place the child in nonsecure detention with electronic monitoring. However, this sanction may be used only if a residential consequence unit is not available. If the violation of probation is technical in nature and not a new violation of law, place the child in an alternative consequence program designed to provide swift and appropriate consequences to any further violations of probation. Neither statute nor Department rules define what is meant by a “technical” violation of probation. However, retired juvenile court judge Frank A. Orlando, accepted as an expert in juvenile detention issues, explained at hearing that: A technical violation in my opinion is something that doesn’t involve a law violation. It is a condition of probation. It would be a curfew. It could be going to school. It could be staying away from a family, a victim, or staying away from a place. It could be not obeying the probation officer, him or herself. In that sense they are technical violations of probation, but they are both violation of probation. In addition, section 985.101(1) provides that a juvenile may be “taken into custody” under chapter 985 for, among others, “a delinquent act or violation of law, pursuant to Florida law pertaining to a lawful arrest,” and “[b]y a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the child is in violation of the conditions of the child’s probation, home detention, postcommitment probation, or conditional release supervision; has absconded from nonresidential commitment; or has escaped from residential commitment.” § 985.101(1)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. However, this provision also expressly provides that “[N]othing in this subsection shall be construed to allow the detention of a child who does not meet the detention criteria in part V.” Part V of the Act includes section 985.255, which sets forth the detention criteria, and provides in pertinent part: Subject to s. 985.25(1), a child taken into custody and placed into secure or nonsecure detention care shall be given a hearing within 24 hours after being taken into custody. At the hearing, the court may order continued detention if: The child is alleged to be an escapee from a residential commitment program; or an absconder from a nonresidential commitment program, a probation program, or conditional release supervision; or is alleged to have escaped while being lawfully transported to or from a residential commitment program. Thus, the undersigned is persuaded that sections 985.439(4), 985.101(1), and 985.255 all support a finding that a violation of probation, not associated with a new violation of law, may under some circumstances result in a new disposition of secure detention. However, pursuant to the Proposed Rules, under these circumstances the state would continue to be responsible for the cost of the secure detention. As explained at hearing, there is an idiosyncrasy in chapter 985 regarding secure detention for juveniles who have been charged with a violation of probation or violating a term of their conditional release. Under chapter 985, a child taken into custody for violating the terms of probation or conditional release supervision shall be held in a consequence unit. If a consequence unit is not available, the child is to be placed on home detention with electronic monitoring. § 985.255(1)(h), Fla. Stat. These consequence units have not been funded by the Florida Legislature for a number of years. However, the juvenile justice system has found a practical method to accommodate the nonexistence of these “consequence units.” For technical violations of probation, the courts often convert the violations of probation to a contempt of court, and will hold the juvenile in detention on this basis. This contempt of court procedure may also be used by the courts to detain a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation based on a new law violation. Pursuant to section 985.037, a juvenile who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed in secure detention not to exceed five days for the first offense, and not to exceed 15 days for a second or subsequent offense. As noted by Judge Orlando and Seventh Judicial Circuit Judge Terrill J. LaRue, an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt is the mechanism used to place a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation or conditional release. In addition, the probation is a significant factor that weighs heavily into the Department’s decision to securely detain the juvenile, and in large part determines whether the juvenile will be detained. For a youth who is on probation and is charged with a new substantive law offense, the Department, pursuant to its rules and policies, determines whether the youth will be detained in secure detention based on the Department’s Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (“DRAI”). § 985.245, Fla. Stat.; rule 63D-9.002. Under the DRAI, if the child scores 0-7 points, the child is not detained; 7-11 points, the child is detained on home detention; for 12 points or more, the child is detained on secure detention. For a youth who is on probation, the underlying charge for which that youth was placed on probation and/or the “legal status” of the youth itself will always be taken into account under the DRAI and will make secure detention significantly more likely than had the youth not been on probation on a number of fronts. This is also true for a youth on commitment status, in the case of conditional release. The highest scoring underlying charge may be used to assess the juvenile for probation if the new law violation does not score enough points for the juvenile to be securely detained. Therefore, there are days served in secure detention based on the scoring of the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, and not the new law violation. In addition, there are a number of points resulting from the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, regardless of whether the DRAI is scored on the new law violation or the underlying charge. A juvenile on probation will always get points purely for his or her legal status of probation. The number of points depends on the amount of time since the last adjudication or adjudication withheld. Six points is assigned for active probation cases with the last adjudication or adjudication withheld within 90 days. Two points are assigned if the last adjudication or adjudication withheld was more than 90 days ago. Similarly, the legal status of commitment, in the case of conditional release, also results in points towards secure detention. The prior adjudication or adjudication withheld which resulted in the probation or commitment status would also score points under the prior history section of the DRAI. In many cases, the underlying charge for which the youth is on probation will be the deciding factor regarding whether the youth is held in secure detention. Thus, the DRAI is significantly affected by a probationary status which adds additional points, and can trigger secure detention, regardless of the nature of the new law violation. In addition, a trial judge has the discretion to place a youth in secure detention on a violation of probation for committing a new law offense even when the score on the DRAI does not mandate secure detention. The Juvenile Justice Information System (“JJIS”) is an extensive database maintained by the Department, and utilized during the process of billing the counties for secure juvenile detention. The reason for the detention stay can be readily ascertained based on information entered into JJIS at the time a juvenile is assessed and detained. For instance, in the case of a violation of probation, there is always a referral for a violation of probation entered by the probation officer. This is true whether the violation is a new law violation or a technical violation of the terms of the probation. In addition, the Department can also ascertain from JJIS whether the juvenile was scored on the new law violation or, alternatively, the underlying charge which resulted in probation. The Department concedes that it can determine, in any given instance, why a juvenile has been detained. As acknowledged by the Department, the responsibility for days, whether predisposition or postdisposition, should be based on the reason for the detention. Probation is considered a postdisposition status. Likewise, detention days of juveniles on probation are postdispositional, and the financial responsibility of the State. Under the Proposed Rules, the only exception are those instances in which a youth is on probation and is detained because the youth is charged with a new violation of law, in which case the detention days prior to final court disposition on the new charge are the responsibility of the counties. This finding is further supported by the Department’s treatment of juveniles on conditional release, which is also a postdispositional status. When a youth is on conditional release with the Department, the youth is on supervision similar to probation supervision. Conditional release and probation contain the same standard conditions. The only essential difference between a youth on “conditional release” and a youth on probation is that a youth on conditional release has the status of commitment rather than probation. There is no real difference in how a probation officer treats a youth on conditional release or a youth on probation and the DRAI does not provide any distinction for the two legal statuses. The Department considers both probation and conditional release qualified postdispositional statuses. Under the Proposed Rules, the counties pay for detention days for youth on probation who commit a new law violation. This is true regardless of whether the youth would be placed in secure detention but for the probation. However, detention days incurred by the same youth who commits a technical violation of probation are deemed the responsibility of the state, since, under the Proposed Rules, the youth has not been charged with a new violation of law. Under the Proposed Rules, when a youth on conditional release commits either a new law violation or technical violation of conditional release and is placed in secure detention, those detention days are to be paid by the State. The Two Day Rule As part of the Notice of Change, the Department added a provision referred to as “the Two Day Rule” to the definitions for pre and postdisposition. The Two Day Rule provides that detention days where the youth is on probation are the responsibility of the state “unless the youth is charged with a new violation of law that has a referral date between zero and two days prior to the detention admission date, as determined by subtracting the referral date in JJIS from the detention admission date in JJIS.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15)(b). Despite conceding that it knows why juveniles are being detained, the Department included the “Two Day Rule” in the Proposed Rule “[b]ecause it is difficult to determine the level of accuracy in the aggregate looking at thousands of cases at once.” Thus, the Two Day Rule captures when the Department receives a referral date for a new criminal charge and presumes that if a juvenile is put in secure detention within two days of that referral date, the detention is for that new charge. In some instances, detention days that should be treated as state days would in fact be treated as county days under the “Two Day Rule.” Mark Greenwald, Director of Research and Planning for the Department, testified: Q. Well, let’s see how factually this would work is that there is a referral for a charge, a new offense, and the youth is detained the next day on a contempt unrelated to that new charge. Isn’t that day going to now be--he is going to be detained because of a violation of the law because of your two-day rule? A. Under the rule, yes, the open charge would count. Q. But if he was a probationer and it was a contempt, that would not have been a county day. That would be a State day. A. Yes. Q. But now because of the two-day rule we will now treat that as a county responsibility and county responsibility for the cost? A. Yes. Other examples were cited in the testimony, such as where there was a pick-up order for a youth on probation who had absconded. Where there was also a new charge, the detention days would be billed to the county, even if the pick-up order was issued prior to the new law violation. Mr. Greenwald testified that when the Department decided to adopt the Two Day Rule, it had done no analysis to determine whether a One Day Rule or a Three Day Rule would more accurately identify probationary youths placed in detention due to a new law violation. Both Judges Orlando and LaRue expressed uncertainty regarding the applicability and utility of the Two Day Rule, noting that the Two Day Rule does not have any correlation or relationship to when or how juveniles are placed in secure detention for violations of probation. Judge LaRue further indicated that the term “referral date” as referenced in the Two Day Rule has no impact on what he does “whatsoever” and is a term: I’ve never heard before. I don’t use that term. I’ve never heard the term. This is something that, in reviewing this potential rule change here – or the rule change, I should say, that’s something I came across and scratched my head a little bit about exactly what it means. I think I know what it means. But it’s not a term that I use – it’s not a term of art, and it’s not a term that I use generally. The evidence adduced at hearing did not establish a rational basis for inclusion of the Two Day Rule provision in the definitions of pre and postdisposition. Notably absent was any credible evidence that use of the Two Day Rule would accurately identify detention days related to new law violations by probationers. To the contrary, the evidence established that use of a blanket metric, arbitrarily set at two days, would under several scenarios improperly shift responsibility for detention days to the counties. Moreover, given the capabilities of the JJIS, there is simply no reason to “assume” that a detention has resulted from a new law violation if within a given period of time from referral, when the Department has the ability to accurately determine the actual reason for the detention. Estimates, Reconciliation and Actual Costs At the start of the fiscal year, the Department provides an estimate to the counties of their respective costs of secure detention which is broken down into 12 installments that the counties pay on a monthly basis. At the end of the fiscal year, the Department performs a reconciliation of those costs based on the “actual costs” and sends a statement to each county showing under or overpayment, and providing for debits and credits as appropriate. The credits or debits would be applied to the current year billing, although they would relate to the previous fiscal year. Proposed Rule 63G-1.013 provides the process for calculating the estimate to each county at the beginning of the fiscal year. As part of this process, the Proposed Rule provides that the Department shall estimate “detention costs, using the current year actual expenditures projected through the end of the fiscal year, with necessary annualized adjustments for any new legislative appropriations within the detention budget entity.” The Department has modified its process in the Proposed Rules so that the estimate of costs is based, to a certain extent, on actual expenditures from the prior year, instead of the appropriation. However, the estimate process also takes into account the appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year, and a portion of the estimate of costs is still based on the appropriation. The Department concedes that there is a need for it to calculate the estimate as accurately as possible, and that there have been occasions in the past where the Department has not provided the counties credits owed as part of the reconciliation process. It is also clear from the record that credits for overpayments have not been provided by the Department to the counties for several fiscal years, beginning in FY 2009-10. Proposed Rule 63G-1.017 provides the annual reconciliation process at year end for determining each county’s actual costs for secure detention. This process includes the calculation of each county’s actual cost which is determined by the number of detention days and a calculation of the actual costs. The total “actual costs” for secure detention are divided by the “total number of service days” to produce an “actual per diem,” which is then applied to each county’s detention days to calculate each county’s share of the actual costs. Proposed Rule 63G-1.011 provides a definition for “actual costs” as follows: [T]he total detention expenditures as reported by the department after the certified forward period has ended, less $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care per section 985.686(3). These costs include expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories (Salaries & Benefits, Other Personal Services, Expenses, OCO, Food Products, Legislative Initiatives, Fiscally Constrained Counties, Contracted Service, G/A-Contracted Services, Risk Management Insurance, Lease or Lease- Purchase of Equipment, Human Resources Outsourcing, and FCO-Maintenance & Repair). The challengers assert that the proposed rules relating to the reconciliation process are vague, internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with statutory requirements contained in the law implemented. These include, but are not limited to: (1) the definition of actual costs fails to include an exclusion for “the costs of preadjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services” pursuant to section 985.686(3); (2) the definition of actual costs is over broad by including “expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories;” and (3) the Proposed Rules fail to provide for input from the counties, as set forth in section 985.686(6). The Proposed Rules do not provide for input from the counties regarding the calculations the Department makes for detention cost share.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner Amber Renae Baker has met her burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling her to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Amber Renae Baker was born on November 25, 1963. At the time of her conviction, she was 43 years of age. On March 28, 2006, Petitioner was charged with racketeering, in violation of Section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes, relating to her participation in her brother's escort service, which was in fact an organized prostitution ring. On April 16-20, 2007, Petitioner was tried before a jury in Escambia County, Florida, on one count of racketeering. She stood trial along with her brother, Dallas Baker, who was tried on a count of racketeering and for procuring a person under the age of eighteen for prostitution, and her mother, Mary Helen Baker, who was tried for racketeering as well. During the trial, Petitioner made a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State did not produce evidence that Petitioner knowingly participated in a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit: that the State of Florida did not produce any evidence that Petitioner knew that any of the women hired by her brother to provide escort services (a legal activity) was also providing prostitution services. Petitioner further argued that the State did not produce sufficient evidence that Petitioner intended to assist in perpetuating anything more than an escort service. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted all three defendants on all charges. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-four and one-half months of imprisonment. On September 22, 2008, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Opinion reversing the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. Baker v. State of Florida, 990 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The District Court found, as a matter of law, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she agreed to secure another person for prostitution or otherwise violated Section 769.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was released from incarceration on October 9, 2008. By the time she was released, Petitioner had been incarcerated for 540 days. Petitioner has never been convicted of any other felony in any jurisdiction. From 1995 through at least 2005, Petitioner answered the telephone for her brother's escort service from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. seven days a week, arranging dates for the callers with the women who worked for her brother. When a call came in, she would describe the different girls that were available by height, weight, hair color, and bra cup size. Then Petitioner would call the woman in whom the caller expressed interest and give her the customer's phone number. The woman would decide if she wanted to go. Petitioner quoted to the customer, as she describes the men who called to hire a woman, the price of $150 to $200 per hour. During the "date," Petitioner would call the woman every hour to ask her if she was alright. After the "date," the woman would bring the money to Petitioner at her brother's trailer where she lived and answered the telephone. She knew that each of the women who worked for her brother had and was required to have a "dance card," which is the slang term for an occupational license for an exotic dancer. Petitioner contends that she did not know that her brother, with her help and her mother's help, was operating a prostitution ring. She contends that she believed that the women were simply going on dinner dates and were being paid by the customer $150 to $200 per hour to accompany a man who was also paying for dinner. She contends that she also thought that sometimes the women were hired for topless dancing or to attend a bachelor party, which meant charging the customer for four hours. Petitioner did not testify at her criminal trial on the advice of her lawyer and of her co-defendant brother. Because she did not testify, the State was not able to offer two documents into evidence. Those documents are a letter she wrote to her mother before her arrest and the transcript of an interview of her after she was arrested. The typewritten letter is undated and was confiscated from her home by the police when they executed a search warrant upon arresting her. In the letter she complains bitterly about her mother not loving her as much as she loved Petitioner's brother. Primarily, though, she complains bitterly that she has worked in the business for years without being paid even minimum wage. The letter also contains the following statements: (1) "And you have never cared that I could lose my kids because of this business. . . ." and (2) ". . . but I am gonna [sic] be left in the dirt as usual answering phones that could cause me to lose my kids. " Those statements are contrary to Petitioner's position in this proceeding that she did not know she was answering the phones and scheduling appointments for prostitution. There would be no danger of having her children removed from her custody for working in a legitimate business answering telephones and scheduling appointments. Further, photographs admitted in evidence show the condition of the trailer where Petitioner lived with her children. The conditions are deplorable and clearly unsafe. Although not obvious in the photographs, Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she allowed dog feces to remain in the trailer without removing them. Yet, she does not appear to have been worried that her children would be removed from her custody for unsafe living conditions, only for her answering the telephone for the business. The recorded and transcribed interview of Petitioner was conducted on March 27, 2006, after her arrest. The following questions and answers are relevant to this inquiry: Q. Did girls ever try to talk about sex with you? People having sex or people wanting some weird things? A. They, a couple of them would try to start talking about some weird things and I would say, I don't want to hear it. Q. What kind of weird things? A. I don't know, like walking on hot dogs. (Laughing) Q. Walking on hot dogs? Were girls allowed to talk to you about, I mean, if a girl tried to talk to you about sex what would you do? A. I would just tell them I don't want to hear about it. * * * Q. Okay. Do you believe the girls were having sex for money? Did you have a pretty good idea they were having sex for money? A. Well, I guess that's what everybody assumes. Q. Did you assume it? A. No Audible Answer. Q. Is that a 'yes' A. Um, what else can you assume? * * * Q. Really? Okay. Is there anything that you can think about that you can tell me why you would believe or what would make you think that Dallas knew the girls were having sex for money? A. I don't know. I, that's the way it's done on t.v. Q. What's, what's how it's done on t.v.? A. Services. Q. That are involved in prostitution? A. I was hoping he wasn't doing it. Q. Really? Did you feel he was? A. I guess. Q. Yes? A. I said I guess. * * * Q. . . . can you think of any conversations you and your mother had about customers or the things they liked or anything like that? A. No, just made jokes about the hot dog thing. We thought that was funny. Q. Really? What did, what did, what did he want her to do after she walked on the hot dogs? A. Let him eat them from between her toes. * * * Q. Men with feet fetishes? Never heard nothing like that? A. I don't know, they would call and ask for somebody with pretty feet sometimes. Petitioner, who professes to have had "a little bit of college," may well have avoided direct conversation regarding the real services offered by her brother's "escort service," but it is evident by her statements both in the letter she wrote to her mother and in her transcribed interview that she in fact knew that sex was involved in the "dates" she arranged and that she was at risk answering the telephones because she was participating in an illegal activity. Petitioner contends that she was an unwilling participant in her brother's business and that she was coerced into answering the telephone for the business because her brother emotionally and physically abused her and threatened her with harm. Petitioner takes two approaches in supporting her position that she was coerced by her brother into answering the telephone. First, Petitioner testified in this proceeding that her brother abused her when she was a child by calling her names and years later by beating her. Interestingly, her letter to her mother describes her brother as a "lying, back stabbing, whore hopping, white trash dog. . . ." It appears that name- calling was not a one-way street in Petitioner's family. Similarly, in her recorded interview she explained that her brother "always beat her up," but then admitted the last time was 16 years earlier. She also explained that when he had recently started cussing at her, she "told him to go to hell." The dynamic between Petitioner and her brother does not suggest duress or coercion, as Petitioner alleges. Petitioner's other approach to proving duress in this proceeding (rather than in the criminal proceeding where it can constitute an affirmative defense) is by the affidavits admitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. One affidavit is that of Petitioner, which alleges her brother continuously beat and threatened her, a version not consistent with her testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this cause. The other affidavit is from a psychologist with solid credentials who saw Petitioner twice after her release from prison. Petitioner's attorney referred her to him for a psychological evaluation. The affidavit is accompanied by the psychologist's report. Although the evaluation showed Petitioner to have "significant emotional problems," it was clear to the psychologist that Petitioner exaggerated her symptoms for the benefit of the evaluation, and her test profiles were, therefore, only marginally valid. Even with his awareness that Petitioner was not an accurate reporter as evidenced by his several references to Petitioner's obvious attempt to influence the evaluation, the psychologist opined that Petitioner needs extended treatment and medication. There is no evidence that Petitioner has followed his recommendations. The holding in Dixon v. United States, 548 U. S. 1 (2006), makes it clear that duress is an affirmative defense and that to invoke it, a defendant must admit the crime and then affirmatively prove that the defendant was coerced by threatened unlawful and imminent harm to commit the crime. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues, inconsistently, that she did not commit a crime and that she was forced to repeatedly perform the act which constituted the crime, i.e., arranging "dates" between customers and prostitutes over a period of approximately ten years. Petitioner does not make a credible witness. Her varying explanations given at different times to different persons undermine her credibility. The purpose of this proceeding is not to determine whether Petitioner is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of racketeering by participating in a prostitution ring, the determination that was made in her criminal trial and the test before the appellate court which overturned her conviction. Rather, in this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for her wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for her conviction and incarceration and that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, she must prove her actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. A review of the appellate court opinion overturning Petitioner's conviction reveals that the State presented insufficient evidence that Petitioner knew of the unlawful nature of the "dates" she arranged. It is appropriate, therefore, that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. However, the inability or failure of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of the act or offense that served as the basis for the conviction and sentence and does not prove that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. The evidence which the State was prevented from offering at her trial by her decision not to testify-- Petitioner's letter to her mother and her statements during her recorded interview--and which, therefore, was not before the appellate court conflicts with Petitioner's testimony that she is innocent. That evidence is not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence, which is the quality of evidence the Statute requires in this proceeding. Further, Petitioner's statements to the psychologist and his conclusions regarding her mental health are not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying her guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of her innocence. Petitioner argues that since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” the definition should be the one found in Black's Law Dictionary. Petitioner's argument is not persuasive. The statutory scheme under which Petitioner seeks monetary compensation in this proceeding requires more than meeting a definition in a dictionary; it requires a certain quality and quantity of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence as did the appellate court when it reversed Petitioner's conviction and as does Black's Law Dictionary. Rather, the Statute seeks a determination of the factual sufficiency of the evidence by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. Based upon the evidence before the trial court, the appellate court found insufficient evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon the evidence in this proceeding, including evidence not presented to the jury in Petitioner's criminal trial and, therefore, not reviewed by the appellate court, there is no verifiable and substantial evidence proving that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that she is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing her Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 4th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Nickolas P. Geeker Escambia County Circuit Judge M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of Court Escambia County M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Keith W. Weidner, Esquire Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. 1823 North 9th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503-5270 Russell Graham Edgar, Jr., Esquire State Attorney's Office Post Office Box 12726 Pensacola, Florida 32575-2726
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent assessed Petitioner for secure juvenile detention care for the 2007-2008 fiscal year in a manner that implements Section 985.686, Florida Statutes, 1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 63G-1.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements of Section 985.686, Florida Statutes, regarding detention care provided for juveniles. Hillsborough County is not a "fiscally constrained county" as that term is defined in Section 985.686(2)(b), Florida Statutes. For the balance of this Recommended Order, the term "county" or "counties" will refer to counties that are not fiscally constrained. Section 985.686(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the "state and counties have a joint obligation, as provided in this section, to contribute to the financial support of the detention care provided for juveniles." Section 985.686(2)(a), Florida Statutes, defines "detention care," for purposes of this section, to mean "secure detention." 2/ Section 985.03(18)(a), Florida Statutes, defines "secure detention" to mean "temporary custody of the child while the child is under the physical restriction of a detention center or facility pending adjudication, disposition, or placement." Section 985.686(3), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that each county "shall pay the costs of providing detention care . . . for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition. The Department shall develop an accounts payable system to allocate costs that are payable by the counties." In summary, Section 985.686, Florida Statutes, requires each non-fiscally restrained county to pay the costs associated with secure detention during predisposition care, and the Department to pay the costs of secure detention during post- disposition care.3/ Each year, the Legislature determines the total amount of the appropriation for juvenile detention care and assigns a portion of the total to be paid by the counties through a trust fund, and a portion to be paid by the Department through general revenue. Section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes, sets forth the general mechanism for this allocation process: Each county shall incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds to pay its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition. This amount shall be based upon the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department. Each county shall pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs shall be reconciled at the end of the state fiscal year.4/ In 2007, Hillsborough County filed with the Department a petition that would be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 07-4398. In that petition, Hillsborough County complained that the Department was improperly calculating the counties' share of secure detention costs. The Department was arriving at a per diem rate by dividing the total detention budget (both the state's general revenue share and the counties' trust fund share) by the total number of predisposition and post-disposition days. Thus, the calculated per diem rate for the Department and the counties was the same. Hillsborough County argued that this methodology was inconsistent with both Section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 63G-1, because those provisions require that only the counties' share of the budget and detention days be used in calculating the counties' costs. Administrative Law Judge Daniel Manry agreed with Hillsborough County that the Department's methodology conflicted with Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.004, and recommended that the Department calculate the costs of predisposition care in Hillsborough County using the methodology prescribed by rule. Hillsborough County v. Department of Juvenile Justice, Case No. 07-4398 (DOAH March 7, 2008). In a Final Order entered on June 4, 2008, the Department adopted Judge Manry's recommendation in all significant respects. In his Recommended Order, Judge Manry compared the actual calculation performed by the Department, which employed the total appropriation of $125,327,667.00, to the calculation required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.004, which would have employed the amount appropriated for the counties' trust fund, $101,628,064.00. Hillsborough County was allocated 47,714 utilization days out of a total of 579,409 utilization days allocated to all counties, or 8.234 percent of the total. Multiplying the counties' trust fund total by the percentage of days allocated to Hillsborough County, in accordance with the rule, would have derived a gross assessment of $8,368,054.79. The Department deviated from the rule by defining the cost of detention to include the total appropriation, including the amount allocable to fiscally constrained counties and to the Department for post-disposition detention care, and dividing that number by the total number of utilization days (predisposition and post-disposition) to derive a per diem rate of $176.70 for all detention care. The Department then multiplied the per diem rate times the 47,714 days allocated to Hillsborough County to derive a gross assessment of $8,400,165.73 for Hillsborough County. Judge Manry recommended that the Department follow the rule and impose the "authorized" gross assessment of $8,368,054.79, rather than the higher number derived by deviating from the rule. The Department accepted Judge Manry's recommendation in its Final Order, albeit with a correction in rounding method that resulted in an estimated assessment of $8,369,013.00 for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. In light of the decision in Case No. 07-4398,5/ the Department followed the procedure set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 63G-1 to arrive at a final reconciled assessment for the 2007-2008 fiscal year of $7,971,227.00, issued on January 30, 2009. Because Hillsborough County had paid estimated assessments of $8,431,267.00, the county was due a credit of $460,039.83.6/ The Department ceased the calculation of a per diem rate and confined its calculation to the predisposition costs and predisposition utilization days, i.e., those costs and days attributable solely to the counties. In the instant case, Hillsborough County argues that the Department should not be allowed to adjust the per diem rate that it established at the outset of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. The per diem rate of $176.70 should be applied to the actual number of predisposition days attributed to Hillsborough County, 37,528 as of January 30, 2009, for a final assessment of $6,631,197.60.7/ In contrast, Hillsborough County's actual year end cost of $7,971,227.00, divided by 37,528 days, would derive a per diem rate of $212.41. Hillsborough County argues that there is no merit or equity in this sharp rise in its per diem rate, despite its having more than 13,000 fewer actual utilization days than was estimated at the beginning of the year. Hillsborough County also argues that there is no merit in the drastically reduced per diem rate enjoyed by the Department due to its mid-year adjustment in the method of calculating costs. Hillsborough County's argument ignores the fact that the Department's mid-year adjustment in methodology was prompted by Hillsborough County's own successful attack on the methodology that derived the $176.70 per diem in the first place. As Hillsborough County itself successfully argued, the $176.70 per diem rate was in derogation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.004, because it included costs not attributable to the counties. Hillsborough County could have had no reasonable expectation that the Department would continue to apply that rate after the result of DOAH Case No. 07-4398. Hillsborough County successfully argued that the counties' expenses should be calculated separately from the Department's expenses. It should therefore come as no surprise to the county that a separate calculation will derive different per diem rates for the counties and the Department. More importantly, the "per diem rate" is not the driver of the formula for calculating the costs of either the counties or the Department. Beth Davis, the Department's director of program accountability, testified that "the per diem rate is simply a mathematical calculation of estimated and/or final costs divided by utilization." The $176.70 per diem rate was an estimate calculated by the Department prior to the 2007- 2008 fiscal year, and would always have been subject to change once the actual utilization data and costs were known at the end of the year. When the actual number of predisposition days turns out to be smaller than the number estimated at the start of the fiscal year, the actual per diem rate will naturally be higher than the estimated per diem rate, absent a proportionate reduction in the legislatively appropriated costs. Hillsborough County did not dispute the actual utilization and cost data employed by the Department, and pointed to no rule or statute binding the Department to its first estimate of the per diem rate. In fact, the evidence established that the Department's final calculation was performed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 63G-1 and in conformance to the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 07- 4398.8/ At the hearing, Hillsborough County also contested the Department's use of the final reconciliation from fiscal year 2005-2006 as the basis for its estimate of utilization days at the outset of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Hillsborough County argues that Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.004(1) requires that each county's share of predisposition detention costs be "based upon usage during the previous fiscal year. . ." Thus, the estimate for the 2007-2008 fiscal year should have been based on usage from the 2006-2007 fiscal year, not that for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. The Department explained that the Legislature meets and passes the budget for the next fiscal year in the spring, well before the end of the current fiscal year. The Department, therefore, is required to make its estimate of utilization days for the next fiscal year prior to the conclusion of the current fiscal year. The calculation for the estimated costs to the counties for fiscal year 2007-2008 was made early in 2007, while the fiscal year 2006-2007 was still underway. The most recent fiscal year with complete and reconciled data was the 2005-2006 fiscal year. The Department used the data from the 2005-2006 fiscal year to estimate the utilization days for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. At the time of the estimate, 2005-2006 was "the previous fiscal year." Under the circumstances, the Department's use of data from the 2005-2006 fiscal year did not violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.004(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Hillsborough County's Petition, and making its proposed assessment final. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 26th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Tanika Parker was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 9, 2005, and was issued correctional certification number 251547. (admitted fact) From August 13, 2004, until July 13, 2006, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections and was assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution. (admitted fact) On January 9, 2006, Respondent applied for a correctional officer position with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. (admitted fact) On March 10, 2006, as part of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office application process, Respondent answered the written question: "Have you had an unprofessional relationship with an inmate, detainee, probationer or parolee, or community controlee [sic]?" by circling on the form as her response: "No." (admitted fact) Also during March 2006, George Montenegro, a Senior Inspector in the Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution, received information from a confidential informant that Respondent "was involved with" an inmate with the nickname of "Plump." Although an investigation was begun, it was not until early July when a second confidential informant disclosed the identity of Plump. It was inmate Leroy Rogers. Thereafter, Plump's phone calls were monitored, and his cell was searched on July 21, 2006. Among other items in Plump's cell were 34 photographs. At that point Respondent had resigned and was no longer an employee of the Department of Corrections. Since Respondent was in the process of being hired by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Inspector Montenegro contacted that agency and spoke with Eric Monath, a Sergeant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Division of Internal Affairs. The 34 photographs taken from Plump's cell included the following: one of a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Plump"; one with a little girl licking the icing off the cake knife; two of the front of Respondent's residence with the little girl in front; eleven more of the little girl at various locations; one close-up of an adult female's breasts; six close-ups of an adult female's naked genitalia; eight of an adult female's genitalia and/or buttocks either partially or fully covered by underwear; one of a T-shirt decorated with two hearts, one of which was inscribed "Plump" and the other one "Plumpness"; and three of a woman in that T-shirt, wearing some of the same underwear depicted in some of the other pictures. The photos of the naked or clothed woman do not show the woman's face, head, or neck. They only focus on a particular part of the female's anatomy. One of the pictures, however, shows the female from behind with her hands on her hips, and that one reveals a scar or discoloration on the woman's left, inside forearm. On July 27, 2006, Respondent attended an orientation session at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, wearing a sleeveless shirt. Sergeant Monath saw that same identifying mark on Respondent's forearm. On August 1, 2006, Sergeant Monath met with Inspector Montenegro at the Walgreen's near Respondent's residence and presented the photos with the identifying Walgreen's information on the back of each one to the store's manager. The store manager confirmed that the identifying information was for that store and, using it, checked the store's computer records. The customer for whom the photographs were developed was Respondent. Inspector Montenegro and Sergeant Monath then drove to Respondent's residence and compared the front of the structure to the structure depicted in the photographs. It was the same, including the location of the sprinkler head in the front yard. The monitored phone calls made by Plump were to a female who was never identified in the phone calls. However, during one of the calls, the female yelled instructions to someone in the background named Taliyah. Respondent's application for employment by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office listed as the only person living with her, her daughter Taliyah Wilcox. Inmate Rogers' visitor log shows that Respondent visited him thirteen times between November 4, 2006, and July 7, 2007. She listed herself as a "personal friend."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her correctional certificate numbered 251547. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire George G. Lewis, P.A. 950 South Pine Island Road, Suite 150 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement - 7100 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
