The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Michael D. Ely, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and licensing law enforcement officers pursuant to Florida law. As such, the Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary actions against law enforcement officers. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer holding certificate number 1119822. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and worked as a deputy sheriff assigned to road patrol for a designated geographic area within the county. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was romantically involved with or was residing with an individual identified in this record as Greta Fernandez or Greta Brown. By his admission, the Respondent's relationship with Ms. Brown began around the first of August 2002. The Respondent met Ms. Brown while he was working an off duty job at Pensacola Beach. His romantic interest in her began in earnest a short while later after he bumped into her at a club known as "Coconuts." Shortly after beginning his association with Ms. Brown, the Respondent was verbally counseled by his superior officer regarding his choice of friends. Officers are warned not to socialize with and associate themselves with undesirable persons. Concerns over the Respondent's association with Ms. Brown continued and eventually led to a written report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) issued on September 21, 2002. According to the Respondent, an individual named Patty Clark verbally teased and tormented Ms. Brown's minor child as the student left the school bus en route home. While the child did not testify in this cause it is presumed for purposes of this record that the extent of the "teasing" included verbal comments and a hand gesture commonly referred to as "the finger." It was alleged that the child was very upset by the incident. At Ms. Brown's urging, on or about September 21, 2002, the Respondent contacted Ms. Clark by telephone and identified himself as a deputy sheriff. He further admonished Ms. Clark to cease her behavior regarding the minor child and issued a veiled comment regarding the status of Ms. Clark's driving privileges (suspended). The Respondent did not write up the incident, did not refer the matter to other law enforcement who might have jurisdiction over the matter (e.g. the Pensacola police department), or take any official action against Ms. Clark. Other than the telephone call that was intended to curb Ms. Clark's actions toward the child, the Respondent took no other official action against the alleged perpetrator. Because she did not appreciate the manner in which she had been contacted, Ms. Clark filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. That complaint led to the written counseling report noted in paragraph 6. It is not alleged that Ms. Clark's actions or comments to the minor child constituted any criminal behavior. Moreover, other than to pacify Ms. Brown and presumably her child, it is unknown why the Respondent would have used his official position as a deputy sheriff to pursue the matter. If Ms. Clark committed a crime or an actionable infraction, the Respondent's wiser course would have been to refer the matter/incident to an appropriate law enforcement authority. As it happened, the Respondent attempted to use his official position of authority to secure a benefit for himself, his girlfriend and/or her child, that is, to coerce the alleged perpetrator (Ms. Clark) and to thereby keep her from interacting with the minor again. Despite the counseling on September 21, 2002, and in contrast to his testimony in this cause on October 15, 2003 (that his relationship with Ms. Brown ended "like the second week of September of 2002"), the Respondent's relationship with Ms. Brown did not end in September 2002. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that the Respondent continued seeing Ms. Brown after the second week of September 2002 and knew or should have known that she associated with persons whose reputations were less than stellar. In fact, the Respondent admitted that he utilized resources available to him through the Sheriff's Office to run background checks on at least two of Ms. Brown's friends because he thought they were "no good." More telling, however, is the fact that the Respondent admitted receiving and delivering to Ms. Brown what he believed were narcotic pills (from Dan Faircloth). The Respondent admitted that Ms. Brown did not go to physicians or doctors on a regular basis for treatment. He also knew that Mr. Faircloth was neither a doctor nor a pharmacist. Finally, the Respondent knew that Ms. Brown continued to receive and take pills for her alleged pain. How the Respondent could have imagined it appropriate for Mr. Faircloth to supply drugs to Ms. Brown is not explained in this record. Whether or not the pills actually were a controlled substance is unknown. It is certain the Respondent believed them to be. Eventually, the Respondent admitted to his superior that he found a crack pipe in his apartment (presumably owned by Ms. Brown). When the incident of the pipe came out, the Respondent was again instructed to break off his relationship with Ms. Brown. As late as November 2002 the Respondent continued to be in contact with Ms. Brown. The Sheriff's Office was by that time so concerned regarding the Respondent's poor judgment in his selection of associates that Lt. Spears felt compelled to write a memorandum to her superior regarding various allegations. One of the incidents that triggered an internal affairs investigation was the Respondent's disclosure to Ms. Brown that the Sheriff's Office was looking for one of her former friends. Ms. Brown tipped the person (for whom an arrest warrant had been issued) off that deputies were looking for her. Based upon the warning of her impending arrest, the suspect fled the jurisdiction. Ultimately, the suspect's arrest was delayed due to the Respondent's disclosure of the warrant information to Ms. Brown. At some point a reasonable person, and certainly a trained law enforcement officer, should have known that Ms. Brown and her associates were not appropriate persons with whom to socialize. In fact, when the Respondent elected to run a background check on Ms. Brown (presumably to check the status of her driving privileges) because he did not want her to drive his vehicle without a valid license, he should have questioned whether or not he should associate with someone he might not be able to trust. When two of her friends were arrested as a result of his checks on them, he should have clearly known to disassociate from Ms. Brown. That he remained in the relationship for as long as he did is incomprehensible. The Respondent offered no rational explanation for his behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as required by law and that the Respondent's certification be revoked based upon the severity of the conduct, the number of violations established by this record, and the lack of mitigating circumstances to support a lesser penalty. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9675 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Roy M. Kinsey, Jr., Esquire Kinsey, Troxel, Johnson & Walborsky, P.A. 438 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32502
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent determined that Petitioner is not qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman due to Petitioner's criminal record and failure to disclose criminal violations. On May 25, 1990, Petitioner was charged by the Metro Dade Police Department with possession of cocaine, resisting arrest with violence, and battery on a police officer. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for 12 months. Petitioner's probation was terminated after six months for good behavior. Petitioner failed to disclose on his application for licensure that he had previously entered a plea of nolo contendere with respect to other criminal charges in 1980 and 1982. On April 2, 1980, Petitioner was charged by the Metro Dade Police Department with auto theft and petty larceny. On May 2, 1982, Petitioner was charged by the Alachua County Sheriff's Office with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and failure to display a driver's license. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of auto theft, petty larceny, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and failure to display a driver's license. Petitioner's failure to disclose his prior criminal record ignored the express terms of his application for licensure. Line seven in the application requested Petitioner to disclose any crime for which Petitioner ever entered a plea of nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld. Petitioner disclosed the criminal case in 1990 but failed to disclose the criminal cases in 1980 and 1982. Petitioner noted next to the item disclosed by him that adjudication was withheld. Petitioner indicated on his application next to his disclosure of the 1990 criminal charges that adjudication was withheld. When asked during the formal hearing why he did not disclose the 1980 and 1982 criminal charges, Petitioner said he thought he did not have to disclose criminal charges for which adjudication was withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June 1991.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Commission on January 21, 1975, and was issued certificate No. 02-13392. On November 29, 1987, the Respondent was arrested by Officer Carl Matrone of the Opa Locka Police Department. During the course of this arrest, Officer Matrone seized a plastic bag which contained in fact 1.0 grams of cannabis, as the term is defined and used in Sections 893.02(3) and 893.03(1)(c)4, Florida Statutes. This amount would yield approximately one marijuana cigarette in volume. As a result of this arrest, the Office of the State Attorney in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit charged the Respondent by affidavit with a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, by unlawful possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. The affidavit was filed in the County Court in and for Dade County. On February 26, 1988, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge as set forth in the charging document. The Court accepted the plea, withheld an adjudication of guilt, and placed the Respondent on a six month period of reporting probation. Furthermore, on October 3, 1988, the Court ordered that the records in this misdemeanor case be sealed. The underlying facts which gave rise to this criminal misdemeanor follow. On November 29, 1987, Officer Matrone observed a Dodge van which was being driven by Respondent at approximately 11:45 a.m. The van was traveling north toward 130th Street on N.W. 30th Avenue when it crossed the median strip and parked in front of an apartment building. This apartment building is known to the police as a narcotics location since numerous arrests have been conducted in the area. As soon as the van pulled over, Officer Matrone observed an unidentified black male approach the van and exchange a small package for an unknown amount of paper money. Respondent received the package and, as Officer Matrone approached, the black male fled on foot. Respondent pulled away from the stop and proceeded to the corner traffic light with Officer Matrone following. When Officer Matrone turned on his siren, the Respondent immediately made a left turn and pulled into the first available parking place. Officer Matrone then asked Respondent to exit his vehicle which he did. Officer Matrone observed Respondent throw a small plastic bag to the ground as he exited the van. The contents of this bag were later tested and were found to contain cannabis. Respondent was not on duty on November 29, 1987. He was, at that time, employed by the Miami Police Department. Lt. Blom, who supervised all of the street officers on the day shift for the Miami Police Department, was notified that Respondent was being held in connection with the incident described in paragraphs 5-9. Lt. Blom went to the Opa Locka Police station and relieved Respondent of duty. Respondent told Lt. Blom "I made a mistake." During the time Lt. Blom talked with Respondent, it did not appear to Blom that Respondent was under the influence of drugs nor did Respondent admit that he had used drugs. Arthur G. DeNunzio, Sr. has known Respondent for over fourteen years. According to Mr. DeNunzio, Respondent has a good reputation in his church and in the community for honesty and integrity. Respondent's moral character is known by Mr. DeNunzio to be good. James Robinson has known Respondent for approximately ten years. Respondent has been employed by Mr. Robinson for approximately five months. According to Mr. Robinson, Respondent has a reputation as a good worker, a man of his word, and a man who gets things done timely and properly. Respondent is thought to be honest, having integrity, and of good moral character. Mr. Robinson entrusts large amounts of money to Respondent's care and has no reservations regarding his judgment or moral character. Emerenciano Soles has known Respondent for approximately sixteen years. According to Mr. Soles, Respondent has a high reputation in his community for honesty and for good moral character. On November 30, 1987, Respondent resigned from the Miami Police Department. During his tenure with the department, Respondent had received good work evaluations and several commendations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2Oth day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard E. Lober, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33172-2108 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as an adjuster by the Department. Respondent has also been licensed in a similar capacity in Texas. Respondent has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding previously. On March 24, 2008, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of criminal use of personal information and one count of offense against intellectual property. Both offenses are felonies, and adjudication was withheld for each count. As a result of this plea, Respondent was sentenced to three years probation, 200 hours of community service, required to submit to anger management counseling, and required to pay costs, $2,121.36 in restitution to the Department for its investigative costs, and $1,258.50 in restitution to the victim, Thuy Daoheuang, for a missing ring. $400.00 of the amount due the victim was paid at the time of the plea, and payments of $200.00 each to the Department and to the victim were to be paid monthly. The terms of the plea allowed for early termination of probation if all conditions of probation were met. The conduct giving rise to the charges against Respondent, and ultimately resulting in his pleas to the criminal charges, stemmed from the termination of his relationship with a former girlfriend, Thuy Daoheuang. Ms. Daoheuang was also an insurance adjuster. After the termination of their relationship, Respondent accessed her insurance licensure information while performing continuing education checks for persons in his firm. Because of his relationship with her, Respondent knew the personal information necessary to have access to her profile. While viewing Ms. Daoheuang's information, Respondent selected the option to cancel her license. Respondent's action was impulsive and although he testified that he regretted it immediately, he could not "undo" the selection. However, he did not take any steps to call the Department and report the action or ask that it be corrected. Respondent's action resulted in the cancellation of Ms. Daoheuang's insurance license. The Department mailed her a letter indicating that her license had been canceled and upon her inquiry, reinstated the license. There was no evidence presented to indicate that her ability to transact insurance was disrupted. Respondent was contacted by investigators from the Department regarding the cancellation of Ms. Daoheuang's license. He admitted his actions and cooperated fully with their investigation. Respondent's employer was informed of the conduct and the resultant criminal action. The company withheld Respondent's annual raise in salary, but did not penalize him otherwise. He remains employed with the same company. The Department was integrally involved in the prosecution of Respondent, and Respondent has been making monthly payments to the Department by check since the acceptance of his plea, as required by his sentence. Respondent also completed the anger management course and has been remorseful for his actions. The criminal proceeding has been a source of great humiliation and Respondent has accepted responsibility for his actions.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Respondent's license as an adjuster for a period of four months. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gautier Kitchen, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Lisa M. Hurley, Esquire Willard Hurley, LLC 517 East College Avenue Post Office Box 10007 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted a request for exemption from employment disqualification with the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Juvenile Justice was the state agency in Florida responsible for the custodial care of juvenile offenders either in agency-run facilities or in facilities operated under contract to the Department. Prior to February 21, 1999, Petitioner had applied for a position with the Okechobee Youth and Development Center which had requested a review of this application. Petitioner was advised that he was disqualified from employment because of his prior criminal record, and on February 21, 1999, he requested a desk review of his application. The request for desk review was granted, and in the letter notifying him of that he was also advised of the his responsibility to provide certain matters in support of his request. On March 8, 1999, Mr. Broff filed an application for employment with Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc., an institution which provides services to youth under contract to the Department of Juvenile Justice, and by letter dated March 11, 1999, Petitioner attempted to explain the background surrounding several of the disciplinary actions taken against him. However, by letter dated March 29, 1999, the Department's Inspector General, Mr. Turner, advised Petitioner that his request for exemption had been denied. Mr. Turner based his decision to deny the exemption based upon his conclusion that the matters submitted by Mr. Broff in support of his request did not constitute sufficiently "compelling evidence" upon which to base the granting of an exemption. Mr. Turner indicated that as a criminal justice agency, the Department must exercise great care and caution in selecting those persons who are allowed to work with the juveniles in its care and custody, and at the hearing, he defined what standards were applied in the selection process. These include the applicant's affidavit of good moral character and disclosure of all court action. Mr. Broff's criminal record is extensive. On November 29, 1985, he was arrested by the Rockledge Police Department and charged with shoplifting. Adjudication of guilty was withheld by the court. On May 28, 1986, he was arrested for grand larceny and four charges of failure to appear. He was convicted of the grand larceny charge, but the disposition of the failure to appear charge is unknown. On June 24, 1987, he was again arrested in Rockledge for shoplifting and was convicted. On June 28, 1988, Mr. Broff was arrested in Volusia County on a charge of possession of cocaine and narcotics equipment. The disposition of those charges is unknown. On November 27, 1988, he was arrested by the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs and two charges of possession of narcotics equipment. Disposition is unknown. On November 30, 1988, he was again arrested in Volusia County on a charge of possession of narcotics and a charge of possession of narcotic equipment. Disposition is unknown. Mr. Broff's seventh arrest came in Brevard County on March 17, 1991, when he was charged with retail theft and shoplifting. Pursuant to his plea of guilty, he was convicted of the charges. On June 6, 1991, he was arrested by the Cocoa Police Department and charged with grand larceny. He was convicted of the charge after a plea of guilty. Then, on October 23 and 25, and again on December 26, 1991, he was arrested by the Cocoa Police Department for shoplifting. It is not known what the outcome of the first and third charges was, but the second charge was dropped. On April 3, 1992, Mr. Broff was arrested by the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on charges of petty larceny and possession of narcotics equipment. Disposition of the charges is unknown. On May 8, 1992, he was arrested in Cocoa on a charge of shoplifting. Disposition of the charge is unknown. On May 19, 1992, the Brevard County Sheriff arrested Petitioner on a charge of burglary, grand larceny, and vehicle theft. The disposition of the burglary charge is unknown, but the grand larceny charge was reduced to larceny. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge and to the vehicle theft charge and was convicted of both. On June 4, 1992, he was arrested in Brevard County on a charge of failure to appear. The disposition of that charge is unknown. On August 20, 1992, he was again arrested in Brevard County on four charges of failure to appear regarding allegations of burglary, grand theft, battery, and petty theft. The disposition of all four charges is unknown. However, on September 1, 1992, he was arrested in Rockledge on a charge of burglary and of grand larceny. He was convicted of the burglary and no action was taken on the grand larceny charge. On May 21, 1993, Mr. Broff was arrested by the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on a charge of battery and probation violation resulting out of a charge of retail theft. The battery charge was not prosecuted and the disposition of the probation violation is unknown. On June 11, 1993, he was again arrested in Brevard County on a charge of shoplifting on which adjudication was withheld. On December 18, 1993, he was arrested in Melbourne on a charge of aggravated assault with a knife. He was convicted pursuant to his plea of guilty. On May 28, 1994, he was again arrested in Melbourne of a charge of spousal battery. The charge was dropped. On April 24, 1995, he was again arrested on a charge of domestic battery. This time he was convicted pursuant to his plea of guilty. He was arrested again on October 25, 1995, in Brevard County on a third charge of domestic battery and was convicted pursuant to his plea. On November 12, 1995, he was arrested for violating his probation on the domestic battery charge and for cruelty toward his wife. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. Finally, on December 7, 1995, he was arrested in Brevard County on a charge of failure to appear on a retail theft charge and, pursuant to his plea, was found guilty. A review of the court records pertaining to those arrests reveals that little punishment of substance was imposed on the Petitioner as a result of his convictions. As to the battery charges he was placed on probation each time with no confinement imposed. The only confinement was imposed as a result of the first grand theft charge, for which he was sentenced to 150 days in the county jail; for the possession of drug paraphernalia charge, for which he was sentenced to 33 days in the county jail; and for the five-count charge involving burglary, vehicle theft, and the related offenses. In that case, he was sentenced to 24 months in prison on each of three charges, to serve concurrently, and was credited with 65 days. According to Mr. Turner, Petitioner did submit the affidavit of good character and a written explanation for some of the offenses he committed, along with background information which he believed might shed some insight onto his behavior. Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, including his personal history, his explanation of the offenses, and the testimonials submitted in his behalf, Mr. Turner denied Petitioner's request for an exemption because of the serious nature of some of the offenses committed by Petitioner; several of the offenses involved his own family; by his own admission, most of his offenses were drug related; and, the overall length of the Petitioner's criminal history--25 arrests over ten years. Those factors were considered in conjunction with what Turner described as insufficient time having elapsed since Petitioner's last offense. In a telephone conversation between Petitioner and Mr. Turner, Mr. Turner is alleged to have indicated the Department's policy to require a period of five years without offenses as evidence of rehabilitation. At the hearing Mr. Turner indicated he considered a minimum of ten years without offenses as acceptable. No evidence of a written department rule or policy defining the length of time required without offense was presented, and it is found there is no defined standard. Mr. Turner admits there is no set period required by the Department. Each case is viewed on its own merits. He considers Petitioner's criminal record the worst he has seen and it is his confirmed opinion that Petitioner should not be permitted to work with the type of clients served by the Department. This is not to say Petitioner should not be allowed to work elsewhere. Petitioner does not deny his criminal history or his former drug addiction. In fact, he contends, the criminal activity was to support his drug addiction. He contends, however, that before he became addicted to drugs and alcohol he had no problem with the law. He was an A/B student in high school and looked toward the possibility of a career in professional baseball. Once the substance abuse began, however, he quickly became addicted and fought for ten years to get clean. It was only when he was in prison that he realized the depths to which he had descended. By this time his self-image was at its worst. He contends that alcohol and drug abuse are manifestations of an inner problem. His mother suffered from a bipolar disorder and his father was an alcoholic who died when Petitioner was 15 years old. Petitioner admits he became just like them. Once Petitioner hit bottom he realized that he had to stop his self-destructive behavior. Fortunately for him, he found Faith Farm Ministries which reached out to him and he entered its long-term program, 18 months in a residential setting followed up by several years in an outpatient setting. It was there he was given back his sense of self-worth and an ability to set goals. Mr. Broff claims he got married when he should not have done so. He married a woman with addictions, and it was a mistake. He attended Brevard Community College where he earned a certificate in heating and air-conditioning repair and installation. That was not what he wanted to do, however. He wanted to become a counselor. For that, he needed further education and he was fortunate to find the help to get it. He continued counseling with his minister, with Alcoholics Anonymous, and with other agencies, all of which caused him to open himself to himself. He went to college and got both an associate and bachelor's degree. Mr. Broff contends that his criminal record is not a true picture of who he is. It reflects an acting-out of his thinking at the time. He is thankful there was someone there for him who gave him a sense of self-worth which allowed him to succeed. Based on his experiences, he believes he can give back to society and wants to do so. Petitioner has been granted an exemption by the Department of Children and Families based on more than three years without problem, as well as his demonstrated personal growth and rehabilitation. More than five years has passed since his last criminal activity, and, in fact, the last two entries were for incidents which took place well before the 5-year period began. He is confident he has rehabilitated himself and could serve as a role model for youth in the various programs conducted by the Department. He is currently working on a master's degree in counseling. Several individuals who are familiar with Petitioner's rehabilitation efforts, including representatives of rehabilitation facilities such as Faith Farm Ministries, Time for Freedom, Alpha Ministries, and Breakthrough Recovery Services, Inc.; representatives of the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Corrections; as well as individuals in the church and in business who know and have worked with him in later years, submitted letters of recommendation in his behalf reflecting his honesty, integrity, professionalism, and commitment to God and His Christian ministry. In these written testimonials, Petitioner is described as a stable and dependable individual whose efforts at counseling those still struggling are excellent. All are convinced of his complete rehabilitation. None of these letters are sworn and none are notarized. As such, their evidentiary value is diminished. In addition, Petitioner did not present any testimony in support of his position other than his own. However, no evidence was presented by the Department to indicate any recurrence of misconduct or of his unworthiness other that his criminal record. Though more direct evidence of rehabilitation by the Petitioner would have reinforced his claim thereof, it is found nonetheless that absent any showing of continuing misconduct, the evidence of record is sufficient to establish rehabilitation.
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 granting petitioner, Joey Broff, an exemption from disqualification from working with children or youth in programs operated by on under contract with this Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joey Broff 4960 West Key Largo Drive Titusville, Florida 32780 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether it is in the public interest to place Petitioners, Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc., on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List maintained by Respondent, State of Florida Department of Management Services (the Department) Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts, as follows: On August 19, 1993, Petitioner was convicted of the commission of a public entity crime as defined within subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioner pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to two counts of filing false claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 287. The conviction related to time charging irregularities on two subcontracts to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. On February 25, 1994, Petitioner properly reported this conviction in its proposal to the Lee County Board of Commissioners. At the time the plea was entered, Petitioner paid to the United States $1,638,000. This included a $1,000,000 criminal fine, and $488,000 in civil damages, and $150,000 to reimburse EPA’s Office of the Inspector General for the costs of the investigation. The government estimated that the amount of improper charges was approximately $200,000. Petitioner’s cooperation with the EPA included voluntarily providing a wide array of information to EPA. Employees from Petitioner’s Finance and Contracts Department met with EPA investigators and auditors to explain Petitioner’s accounting system. Petitioner assisted EPA by making employees available for interviews. Petitioner voluntarily provided documents and other information to EPA. Petitioner fully cooperated with the Department of Management Services in connection with its investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Petitioner provided information as requested. No other persons or affiliates were charged with public entity crimes in relation to these matters. As a responsible government contractor, Petitioner has taken steps to prevent actions like those that formed the basis for its guilty plea from recurring. These steps and the ethical history of the company are listed in the stipulation and settlement agreement attached as Appendix A and are incorporated herein. Petitioner properly reported its plea to the Lee County Board of Commissioners and provided additional, extensive information concerning its guilty plea and related matters to the Respondent on April 5, 1994 and June 23, 1995. Petitioner’s presence in the market adds to competition in Florida markets for the transportation and consulting in solving state/public sector problems and in implementing their solutions. Petitioner’s commercial freight practice is the foremost management consultant to port authorities in the United States. Petitioner’s depth of knowledge and understanding of port operations, management, and planning have made Petitioner the consultant of choice to port authorities throughout the country. Specific projects are outlined in the stipulation and settlement agreement and are incorporated herein. In addition, Petitioner, due to its over 80 years of experience in both public and private sector (including Florida), can provide a broad perspective on solving state/public sector problems and in implementing their solutions in areas including law enforcement, systems integration and health care. Petitioner has a long history of providing service to the communities in which it works. Again specific instances of community service are referenced in the stipulation and settlement agreement and are incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer and he was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department. Respondent was married to Stephanie Brown and is the father of two of her children. Marital problems arose and in June 1983 they separated. At the time, Stephanie Brown owned and operated a barbershop. Each time Respondent and his wife met they argued. At a judicial hearing Respondent was directed to pay child support to his wife. The check he gave Stephanie in the presence of the judge, Respondent tried to recover when he left the courthouse. He was quite angry when Stephanie refused to return this check to him. That same evening, which Stephanie identified as October 24, 1983, Respondent came to the barber shop shortly before closing. Respondent was very angry and demanded return of the money he had been directed to pay as child support, told Stephanie he was sick and tired of her, and did not intend to lose his job because of her complaints. At this time Stephanie was sitting behind her desk at the salon and Respondent was standing in front of the desk. During the argument Respondent tilted the desk toward Stephanie and a letter opener fell off the desk. This letter opener, which was described by Stephanie as having a metal blade approximately, eight inches long, was picked up by Respondent and waved around by him as they argued. Stephanie testified that Respondent was close enough to cut her with the letter opener and that she was afraid he would: however, no evidence was presented that Respondent made any attempt to use a letter opener as a weapon or made any specific threat to harm Stephanie with the letter opener. Ms. Jackson, a customer of Stephanie's who knew Respondent, came in from the back part of the salon and saw Respondent and Stephanie arguing, with Respondent holding the letter opener. She attempted to calm Respondent and apparently succeeded since 'Stephanie testified that after Ms. Jackson calmed Respondent down he cried and was upset. Stephanie also testified that on another occasion Respondent came in the salon shortly before closing and they again got into an argument. Although Respondent was off duty, Stephanie knew he was armed because he "always carried his pistol the course of this argument Stephanie never saw Respondent draw his pistol, have it in his hand, or even have the pistol exposed where she could have seen it. Stephanie testified that an employee' of hers, Yvette Spann, came in while she and Respondent were arguing and later told Stephanie that she had seen a gun in Respondent's hand. This hearsay testimony was corroborated no admissible evidence. The police officer who investigated the charges Stephanie had made against Respondent was the second witness called by Petitioner. This officer had no first-hand knowledge of either of the assault charges preferred against Respondent. As a result of Sergeant Wilkinson's investigation Respondent was discharged from the Tampa Police Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 14, 1983, and November 19, 1981, and was issued certificate numbers 02-33918 and 502-868. Respondent is currently certified as a law enforcement officer and as a correctional officer by the Commission. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. On May 3, 1986, Respondent, Deputy McDonald, and their immediate supervisor Sergeant James Walkup were working a directed patrol in the south portion of Broward County, Florida. Each was in his own patrol car, but they were working as a group with the express purpose of conducting a routine harassment of known or suspected drug dealers or users in the vicinity. They spotted a rental car occupied by two black males parked in an open field in a residential neighborhood. The occupant of the vehicle in the driver's seat was Jimmy Fox, a reputed drug dealer. All three patrol cars pulled into the field behind the rental vehicle. Respondent "radioed" in that he had made a traffic stop. Neither McDonald nor Walkup radioed that they were on the scene to serve as back-up units. Deputy George Gechoff was working off-duty at the Home Depot on 58th Avenue in the west Hollywood area when he heard Respondent radio that he had made a traffic stop. Since Gechoff did not hear anyone radio that they were serving as back-up to Respondent, Gechoff drove to the location of the traffic stop which was just a few blocks away. When Gechoff arrived at the scene Respondent had already searched the front seat area of the rental vehicle and had asked Fox's permission to search the trunk. Initially, Fox refused consent to the search of the trunk of the rental vehicle. Gechoff and Fox knew each other. After Respondent assured Fox that Fox would not be arrested since the search was illegal and after Gechoff urged Fox to be cooperative, Fox consented to the request. The trunk of the car was opened, and Respondent and Gechoff began searching it. The Respondent found a pistol in the trunk and went to his patrol car to "run a check" on the gun. While Respondent was in is patrol car, Deputy Gechoff, who assisted in the search of the trunk, found an aspirin or "pill- type" bottle containing approximately 50 small objects. Although Walkup testified that the objects were square cubes of yellowish material, Gechoff testified that the objects were white chips of different sizes. At the time, Walkup, Gechoff, and Respondent each believed that the objects were "crack" cocaine. If the objects were indeed crack cocaine, each object would be a single dose of the drug, and each object would have a sale price ranging from $10 to $20. In respondent to his radio inquiry, Respondent was advised that he had a "hit" on the gun, which meant it was wanted in connection with a crime or that it had been previously reported as stolen. When Respondent communicated that information to his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Walkup, Gechoff handed Respondent the aspirin bottle. Walkup instructed Respondent to take both the firearm and the suspected cocaine and write up a "found property report." Respondent was concerned about writing a report for found property, rather than seized property, and suggested to Walkup that they simply turn the matter over to the State Attorney's Office. Walkup took the position that the property was illegally seized since there was no probable cause for the search of the vehicle and the search had taken place simply as part of an harassment operation. He instructed Respondent to report the property as "found property" and left the scene. When Respondent left the scene, he had with him both the confiscated firearm and the aspirin bottle with its contents. He remained concerned about being ordered to write a found property report, but knew he had to do something since he had already radioed in that he had recovered a firearm wanted by the Broward County sheriff's Office. On the spur of the moment, as he was driving through a wooded area near a rock pit, Respondent took the top off the bottle and threw it out the window scattering the contents as he threw away the bottle. Later that day Respondent wrote and signed an Event Report at the Broward County Sheriff's Office reporting that he had found a .44 Magnum and suspected cocaine off the roadway while on routine patrol. The firearm was turned in at the same time, and a property receipt was issued. No property receipt was issued for the suspected cocaine. Several weeks later, Sergeant Walkup received a telephone call from Fox concerning the incident on May 3. In response to that telephone call, Walkup retrieved and reviewed Respondent's report of the May 3 incident with Fox. Upon reviewing the report, Walkup became concerned with the apparent conflicts between the report's contents and his recollection of the events. He so notified his supervisor. On July 1, 1986, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Roger Lekutis of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Internal Affairs Unit. He admitted that after he drove away from the scene of the Fox "traffic stop" he threw the bottle which he believed contained cocaine "rocks" out the window of his patrol car. He told Lekutis that Walkup had instructed him to write a report of the incident as a "found property" report. He also admitted failing to turn over the suspected cocaine to an evidence custodian. No evidence was offered suggesting that Respondent disposed of the suspected cocaine in a manner different than throwing it out the window as he drove through the wooded area near the rock pit, and the Respondent's testimony in that regard is credited. Since this incident, Respondent has been reinstated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office but was not yet on the payroll by the time of the final hearing in this cause, since he was undergoing certain pre-employment certification and testing procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1989. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 88-4963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13-17, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4, 7, 11, 12, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a license to engage in the business of contracting should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact In June 2004, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for licensure as a certified general contractor. Petitioner had already passed the requisite contractor's examination. Question one at page six on the form used by Petitioner states: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, intersection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Petitioner answered this question in the affirmative and disclosed a federal bank robbery conviction from 1994. Petitioner served 58 months in prison, underwent three years of probation, and paid full restitution for that conviction. Question eight of the form used by Petitioner at Page 13 states: Have you, or a partnership in which you were a partner, or an authorized representative, or a corporation in which you were an owner or an authorized representative ever: * * * 8. Been convicted or found guilty of or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction within the past 10 years? Note: if you, the applicant/licensee, have had a felony conviction, proof that your civil rights have been restored will be required prior to Licensure. Because Petitioner has had a clean record since his bank robbery conviction in 1994, Petitioner answered this question in the negative. The "No" answer was provided despite the fact he had been found guilty of two misdemeanors: Unauthorized Use or Possession of Driver's License and Unlawful Possession of Cannabis upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea in 1989. On August 5, 2004, Respondent requested additional information from Petitioner concerning his work experience and equipment. On February 8, 2005, Respondent requested additional information regarding proof of restoration of Petitioner's civil rights. Neither of the requests asked Petitioner for further information about his criminal past. The application was reviewed by Respondent and was denied. The Board's (amended) stated grounds for its denial of the application were: (1) Petitioner was guilty of committing a crime -- bank robbery -- directly related to contracting or the ability to practice contracting pursuant to Subsection 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004); (2) Petitioner was guilty of committing a crime -- bank robbery -- related to contracting or the ability to practice contracting pursuant to Subsections 455.227(1)(c) and (2), Florida Statutes; (3) Petitioner was guilty of making fraudulent misrepresentations on his application pursuant to Subsections 455.227(1)(h) and (2), Florida Statutes; and (4) Petitioner lacks "good moral character" under Subsections 489.111(1)(b) and (3), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was confused by the questions on the application concerning past criminal history. He freely and voluntarily provided information about the felony bank robbery conviction. He did not believe the misdemeanor charges were within the time frame (ten years) discussed in the application. Applicants routinely make mistakes and have omissions on the Board's application form, causing the Board to routinely send formal Requests for Additional Information to applicants. The Board processes hundreds of applications every week. Many applicants receive formal written Requests for Additional Information from the Board, including requests directed to the criminal history section of the Board's application package. Professional services have developed for the purpose of assisting applicants with these applications. One such service helps with 15 to 20 applications every week. Petitioner is not and has never been a contractor, or a certificateholder or registrant, under Chapters 455 or 489, Florida Statutes (2004). Obviously then, Petitioner has never been the subject of any DBPR disciplinary action proceedings or orders commenced under Section 455.225 or Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2004). A licensed contractor may typically collect funds from his client and disburse them to vendors, subcontractors, and the like. Contractors could also have access and/or keys to houses of persons for whom they are working. These responsibilities require the contractor to act prudently and reasonably. It is noted that a contractor may utilize a "financially responsible officer" to manage and be responsible for all monies coming from the contractor's clients. Respondent maintains that the bank robbery conviction is evidence of Petitioner's bad moral character. No other evidence of Petitioner's character was presented by Respondent. Petitioner's family immigrated to the United States via Spain from Cuba in 1980. He had a high school diploma and attended college, but did not finish his degree. He was abusing alcohol and drugs and associating with the wrong sort of people at the time he committed the bank robbery in 1994. While in prison, Petitioner attended drug rehabilitation classes for a period of one year. The classes were held five days a week, eight hours per day. During this time, he was housed in a special dorm for inmates attending the classes. His drug rehabilitation courses continued for six months after he was released from prison. He has paid full restitution for the money he stole. Petitioner's last criminal conviction was the 1994 bank robbery. Since abandoning drugs after this conviction, Petitioner has not been arrested for any crime, has become a husband and father, and has dispatched his professional duties to the praise of his colleagues and employer. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped using drugs. He is currently employed as a sales manager for a large telecommunications company. He has an excellent credit history. Petitioner owns his own home subject to a mortgage. Petitioner also owns his own painting business, which is licensed by Broward County, Florida. Rafael Antequera has known Petitioner for approximately five years. Petitioner currently is employed by Antequera's company, Antequera Enterprises, Inc., with whom Petitioner would become a general contractor upon approval of his certified general contractor's licensure application. Mr. Antequera trusts Petitioner with his company's supplies, equipment, and money. Mr. Antequera considers Petitioner to be a good, honest, hard-working, and reliable employee. Antequera believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong and has the character to observe the difference. Mr. Carlos Alonso also has known Petitioner for more than four years. Mr. Alonso worked with Petitioner at Mr. Alonso's family construction company, Domas & Alonso Development, Inc. Petitioner worked for Mr. Alonso as a project manager from 2004 to 2005. His duties included ordering supplies, picking up supplies, and interacting with local building inspectors. Petitioner was in a position of great trust and was often given a blank bank check to obtain project supplies. Petitioner never misused or abused that position of trust and authority. Rev. Adam S. Zele is a pastor at Epworth United Methodist Church, where Petitioner attends church. Pastor Zele described Petitioner as a hard-working, devoted family man with religious conviction. Zele also has observed Petitioner in a business capacity. With full knowledge of Petitioner's prior criminal history, Pastor Zele awarded Antequera Enterprises a $20,000 bid to paint his church. Petitioner acted as the salesperson for the project, and Pastor Zele was confident enough in Petitioner to hand Petitioner a check in the amount of $10,000 for the first half of the work. Petitioner is actively involved with the activities of Epworth United Methodist Church. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. The Board recently granted a license with six years' probation to an applicant who had been convicted of a crime related to contracting. The nature of that crime was not clear from the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation granting a contractor's license to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 26th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy P. Atkinson, Esquire Gavin Burgess, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
