The Issue Whether Respondent, Candido Iglesias, d/b/a Iglesias Driving School, on November 4, 1981, and March 4, 1982, violated Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to keep a duplicate copy of every contract entered into between his school and every person taking lessons, lectures, tutoring, and instructions relating to the operation of a motor vehicle on file at the school location. If such violations occurred, whether the Respondent's commercial driving school license should be suspended for a period of three months, or until compliance with Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code, is demonstrated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Candido Iglesias, d/b/a Iglesias Driving School, is presently licensed by Petitioner, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, as a commercial driving school and has been so licensed for approximately the last four years. On November 4, 1981, and again on March 4, 1982, the Respondent was in violation of Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code, in that he did not have on file at his school location a duplicate copy of every contract entered into between the school and its driving students. An interim inspection on November 19, 1981, found Respondent to be in compliance with Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code, and it was stipulated by the parties at hearing that as of March 5, 1982, through the time of final hearing, Respondent was in full compliance with that rule. In both instances in which Respondent was found to be in noncompliance with Petitioner's rules, the fault lay with one of Respondent's driving instructors, whom he has since terminated. Enforcement of Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code, is important to public safety in that it enables Petitioner to determine whether students taught by driving schools have had their eyesight and knowledge of the traffic laws tested by Petitioner, and whether competent instructors are teaching driver training. Respondent was warned on more than one occasion that it was necessary for him to demonstrate compliance with Rule 15A-2.05(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver Licenses, suspending Respondent's commercial driving school license for a period of three months, and, in light of Respondent's demonstrated compliance with the department s rules at time of final hearing, that that suspension be itself suspended, and Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year subject to a demonstration of continuing compliance with the department's rules and regulations at such intervals as the department may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 4th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Alan Goldfarb, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 12th Floor, Roberts Building Department of Highway Safety 28 Flagler Street and Motor Vehicles Miami, Florida 33130 Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James T. York, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks a determination that a policy of the Respondent is a rule, and that such policy/rule is invalid because it has not been adopted pursuant to the procedures set forth at Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The challenged rule was described in the petition as a policy to the effect that . . . a man's middle name can be changed to his wife's maiden name on his driver's license only by court order and not by presenting a copy of his marriage certificate. However, a female may add her husband's name on her driver's license as a surname by presenting a copy of her marriage certificate. . . . At hearing it was clarified that the policy to which the challenge is directed is the policy set forth in the last paragraph of page 7-3 of the Florida Examiner's Manual. At the hearing both parties presented testimony and offered exhibits which were received in evidence. The parties were originally allowed until December 17, 1988, within which to file their proposed final orders. At the request of the parties that deadline was extended until December 22, 1988. Both parties filed proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All findings proposed by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this final order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner's birth name, which name he used until the time of his marriage, was Joseph Charles Sexton. On August 8, 1988, Petitioner was married to Beth-Anne (NMN) Thye. Since the marriage, the Petitioner has used the name Joseph Thye Sexton and his wife has used the name Beth-Anne Thye Sexton. The marriage certificate of the Petitioner and his wife does not state what name either of them intends to use after the marriage. Following the marriage, Petitioner's wife was permitted to change her name on her driver license from Beth-Anne Thye to Beth-Anne Thye Sexton, using only her marriage certificate. Following the marriage, Petitioner' attempted to change the name on his driver license from. Joseph Charles Sexton to Joseph Thye Sexton, using only his marriage certificate, but was told by employees of the Respondent that he would need a court order to make such a change. The Respondent has published a manual with the title Florida Examiner's Manual. The manual has been distributed by the Respondent and is used by the Respondent's employees in the fulfillment of their duties related to the issuance of driver licenses. The manual contains the current policies of the Respondent. The portions of the manual quoted hereinafter have not been adopted as rules pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of Section 120.54, Florida Statues. The Florida Examiner's Manual, at page 7-7, under the subheading Applicant With Name Established On Florida Computer Record, reads as follows: Name changes can be proven by the following documentation: Females: *Marriage certificate, *Court order, *Out-of-state license, *Naturalization papers, *Divorce decree (Dissolution of marriage), *Names already established on record, or --May go back to previous last name, such as a maiden name, without Court Order, etc., if name is already on record. *Two forms of identification in the same name as listed on page 7-1. M *Naturalization paper, *Court Order, or *Two forms of identification in the came name as listed on page 7-1. Page 7-3 of the Florida Examiner's Manual, under the subheading Hyphenated Names, includes the 2. Hyphenated first, second, and/or last names can be used. *Maiden-married or married-maiden names of female applicants can be hyphenated at the request of the female applicant without court order. Identification proving maiden and married names must be presented. *Male applicants may not assume the maiden name of their spouses or use a hyphenated combination of the husband's last name and the wife's maiden name unless authorized by Court Order (pursuant to a May 7, 1984 Departmental legal opinion.) The Respondent's rationale for the policies quoted in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, is that it is "customary" for a woman to take her husband's surname upon marriage, but it is not "customary" for a man to take his wife's maiden name upon marriage. Those policies promote administrative convenience, because they are consistent with established custom. It is very important for the Respondent to establish and maintain accurate information as to the identity of its licensees, in order to protect the business community, law enforcement officers, the motoring public and the public at large. To this end the Respondent operates an extensive fraud prevention program. If a male driver changes his name and is issued a new driver license in his new name, the Respondent does not lose track of that driver's prior driver record. Rather, an inquiry under the new name will also access information under the prior name.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by obtaining a license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment; violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), by failing to disclose material information in her application; and, if so, what, if any, penalty is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. All references to rules are to rules adopted in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a real estate broker pursuant to license number 0421942. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker t/a Action First Realty, 7622 Praver Court, Jacksonville, Florida 32217. On January 9, 1984, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate salesperson. On February 11, 1993, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate broker. On each application, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit that all of her answers were true and correct and: . . . are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. . . . In relevant part, question six on the sales license asked Respondent whether she had ever been arrested or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality or state without regard to whether she was convicted. Question nine on the broker application asked Respondent whether she had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered "no" to both questions. In each case, Petitioner relied on the accuracy of the application and issued a license to Respondent. On November 7, 1978, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of cashing a worthless check in the amount of $5.00. Respondent wrote the check to Carvel Ice Cream for a birthday cake for her daughter's birthday. Respondent was in the process of moving, and the notice of insufficient funds was not delivered to her. Respondent went to court and paid the $5.00 check and the court costs. The judge characterized the charge as frivolous and was perturbed that the charge consumed time in his court. On October 30, 1980, adjudication was withheld on the charge of driving with a suspended license. Respondent attended driving school. The offense does not appear on Respondent's Florida driving record for her entire driving history. Respondent did not willfully misstate a material fact on either application. Respondent testified under oath that she did not consider either offense to be a crime and did not try to lie about either offense. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Respondent answered "no" to questions six and nine on her applications in the good-faith belief that the offenses were immaterial and not the type of offenses addressed in either question. When Petitioner's investigator interviewed Respondent, Respondent answered all questions fully and truthfully and cooperated in the investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and imposing no penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Barbara Lynn Clarke 7622 Praver Court Jacksonville, Florida 32217 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rolando Mirabet, was first licensed as a commercial driving instructor in 1981. His current license will expire February 1, 1983. On March 26, 1982, a cameraman for WTVJ, Channel 4, Miami, while posing as a driver's license applicant at the Central Driver License Office was approached by Respondent. The cameraman/applicant told Respondent he was looking for the answers to the driver's license examination. They entered an automobile, Respondent showed the cameraman/applicant papers which he represented to be test questions from the actual driver's license examination, and the cameraman/applicant told Respondent he needed to take the questions and answers home with him to study. Respondent sold the questionnaire to the cameraman/applicant for twenty-five dollars ($25). Other employees of WTVJ filmed the encounter between Respondent and the cameraman/applicant from inside a surveillance van. The document sold by the Respondent to the WTVJ cameraman/applicant contains fifty-three questions with multiple-choice, alternate answers provided for each question and with one of the alternate answers for each question being marked as the correct answer. The document is in Spanish. Applicants for a driver's license are required, among other things, to pass a written examination concerning rules and regulations for driving in the State of Florida. Petitioner uses four different written examinations for testing applicants. During the hearing, one of Petitioner's witnesses compared the questionnaire sold by the Respondent to the cameraman/applicant and one of the Spanish versions of Petitioner's examination. Although the witness identified five questions as being the same on both documents, he also recognized some of the questions on the document which Respondent sold as being questions from the other versions of Petitioner's Spanish examination. A close review of the actual examination admitted in evidence and the document sold by Respondent reveals, however, that all twenty questions on the actual examination are found verbatim in the document sold by Respondent, and the alternate, multiple-choice answers to each question are also verbatim. Respondent admits giving the questions and answers to driver's license applicants. Respondent denies any knowledge of the rules and regulations enacted by Petitioner. Petitioner publishes a driver's handbook. That handbook contains a number of questions that are general in nature. No answers to those questions are suggested, and a reader needs to understand the entire book in order to answer those questions. Only one sample question with multiple-choice answers is given in order to illustrate to applicants the type of question which the applicant will encounter on the licensing examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered permanently revoking the commercial driving instructor's certificate card of Respondent, Rolando Mirabet. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 27th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan Goldfarb, Esquire 12th Floor, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. Chester F. Blakemore Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially licensed as a commercial driving instructor in November, 1980, for Autosa International, Inc., a driving school in Miami, Florida. His current license, which is due to expire in November, 1982, is with Fajardo Driving School. As a commercial driving instructor, Respondent's responsibilities include teaching applicants how to drive in order to become licensed drivers in Florida. Florida drivers are not required to speak English. The Petitioner's Florida Driver's Handbook, which contains all of the rules and driving procedures, is, accordingly, issued in both English and in Spanish. In order to ensure knowledge of the Handbook, applicants are required, among other things, to take a written, multiple-choice, rules- of-the-road and road-sign test for licensure. The written examination is given both in English and in Spanish. Petitioner uses four different examinations on a random basis. The clientele of Autosa International are primarily Spanish speaking. The Florida Driver's Handbook contains many questions for the reader's benefit in verifying his or her understanding of the contents of that handbook. The questions are general in nature, and no answers are provided. On Page 77 of the Handbook, one sample question is given with multiple-choice answers and the correct answer being checked. This sample question is provided in order to illustrate the form of question given on the written examination. When Respondent began his employment with Autosa International, Inc., driving school, he was assigned a 1980 Spirit automobile. When an instructor at Autosa is assigned an automobile, he is permitted to take that automobile home, but is required to assume responsibility for having the automobile maintained and serviced. Acting upon information given to him, Ardo Mesa, president of Autosa International, searched the automobile assigned to Respondent when Respondent was not present. In the trunk of that automobile, in the space between the spare tire and the cover for the spare tire, Mesa found a copy of one of the Petitioner's Spanish examinations and a second set of papers which is a composite of questions from the four Spanish examinations given by the Petitioner. The questions on both sets of documents are followed by multiple- choice answers with the correct answer being marked. When Mesa realized that these documents were the actual Spanish examinations given by the Petitioner, he returned the documents to the space under the spare-tire cover and began watching the Respondent for the next several days in order to determine why Respondent possessed those documents. After seeing Respondent take the papers out of his trunk and give them to students, Mesa confronted Respondent on March 5, 1982. With Respondent present, Mesa opened the trunk, took out the documents, and ripped them into several pieces. Respondent acknowledged to Mesa that the documents were his. Mesa threw the torn documents into the trunk of Respondent's car and terminated Respondent's employment with Autosa driving school. Mesa later retrieved the torn documents from the trunk of the car, taped them back together, placed them in an envelope in his office, and contacted Petitioner to report Respondent's possession of copies of Petitioner's examinations. Respondent had been employed by Autosa International and had possession of the 1980 Spirit for approximately three months before his employment was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered permanently revoking the commercial driving instructor's certificate of Respondent, Juan Crespo. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 26th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan Goldfarb, Esquire 12th Floor, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. Chester F. Blakemore Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
