Conclusions This matter is before the Department of Administration for entry of a Final order. A Recommended Order was entered herein on December 30, 1988, by Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer. The record in this case, including the exhibits received into evidence ang the transcript of the hearing, has been reviewed. The Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order (Exhibit "A", attached hereto) are supported by competent substantial evidence and are adopted by the Department of Administration. The Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order (Exhibit "A", attached hereto) are adopted and incorporated as part of this order. Petitioner's Exceptions Petitioner through his attorney has filed exceptions to the Recommended Order which are responded to as follows: (1) Exception 1: There is no competent evidence in the > record to substantiate the Respondent's assertion. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by the record. Exception No. 1 is rejected. (2) Exception 2: The record does not support this exception. The prior occasions when the Petitioner was not required to call in each day of his absence were for specific long-term periods. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by the record. Exception No. 2 is rejected. (3) Exception 3: The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by the Record. Exception No. 3 is rejected. (4) Exception 4: The findings are supported by competent evidence in the record. Exception No. 4 is rejected. (5) Exception 5: The record evidence will support the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact. Petitioner failed to properly notify his supervisors as required. Exception No. 5 is rejected. (6) Exceptions 6, 7, and 8: The Respondent's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are directed toward the ultimate conclusion of the Hearing Officer and not to the Findings of Fact, which are supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record. Exceptions No. 6, 7, and 8 are rejected. (9) Exception 9 and 10: The Respondent's exceptions are directed at the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law. The Conclusions of Law are supported by the Hearing Officer's findings. An employee who is absent without proper authorization pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2) (a), F.A.C. for three consecutive days shall be deemed to have abandoned his position. See Hadley >) “) Vv. Department of Administration, 411 So.2a 184, (Fla. 1982). The exceptions of the Respondent are premised upon a theory of estoppel. The Respondent argues the past conduct of the employer precludes an enforcement of the abandonment rule under the findings of this case and therefore Respondent was justified in not seeking authorization for his absence. The court has held that past conduct of an employer will not preclude an employer from enforcing Rule 22A-7.010(2) (a), F.A.C. Department of Transportation v. Clancy, 521 So.24 376, (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988). Exceptions No. 9 and 10 are rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners and Respondent have stipulated to the following facts: The three petitioners are inmates at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida, in the custody of the Department of Corrections. All three of the petitioners have had their PPRD's established by the respondent-commission as follows: In June of 1982, Mr. Piccirillo's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 30, 1986. In January of 1982, Mr. Adams' PPRD was established by the commission to be November 11, 1991. In December of 1982, petitioner Hemming's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 29, 1993. Subsequent to the commission having established their PPRD's, all three of the petitioners have been transferred from one Florida penal institution to another state institution as follows: Mr. Piccirillo was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1982. Mr. Adams was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1932. Mr. Hemming was transferred from Avon Park Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on February 16, 1983. The petitioners were not transferred to Union Correctional Institution because of any unsatisfactory institutional conduct at their former institutions. Petitioners are currently scheduled by the commission for biennial interviews to review their established PPRD's as follows: Mr. Piccirillo is scheduled for a biennial interview in March of 1984. Mr. Adams is scheduled for a biennial interview in October of 1983. Mr. Hemming is scheduled for a biennial interview in September of 1984. The following additional findings are made from evidence presented at the hearing: The respondent-commission has not made a finding that any of the petitioner's institutional conduct has been unsatisfactory under the challenged rule nor has respondent extended their PPRD's or refused to authorize their EPRD's. In applying the challenged rule, the fact that an inmate has been transferred to a higher custody or higher level institution is only considered to be unsatisfactory institutional conduct where the commission receives documentation evidencing institutional misconduct as the basis for the transfer. Petitioners transfers from other institutions to Union Correctional Institution would not be considered unsatisfactory institutional conduct under the challenged rule because there is no documentation of institutional misconduct which led to these institutional transfers.
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint [AHCA No.: 2009004030; DOAH No.: 09-4620] dated July 31, 2009, attached hereto N . . . and incorporated herein (Exhibit 1), and having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deny [AHCA No.: 2009008267; DOAH No.: 09-4534] dated July 27, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit 2), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 3) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: | ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Upon full execution of Agreement, the parties agreed to the following: a. Grand Court Village I agrees to pay $4,500.00 in administrative fines to the Agency within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Final Order. b. The Notice of Intent to Deny is deemed superseded by this Settlement Agreement. c. Grand Court Village I’s requests for formal hearings in AHCA Case No. 2009004030 and in AHCA Case No. 2009008267 are withdrawn. d. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the Agency shall begin processing Grand Court Village I’s application. ‘ 3. A check should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Grand Court Village I’s petitions for formal administrative proceedings are hereby dismissed. 6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 7. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this / day of Noverber , 2010, >» / Elizabeth Sa ern Secretary Agency for He Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished to: Julie Gallagher, Esq. Attorney for Grand Court Village I Akerman Senterfitt 106 East College Avenue Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (U. S. Mail) Lourdes A. Naranjo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 8333 N. W. 53 Street Miami, Florida 33166 Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33166 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) John G. Van Laningham Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative hearing 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Unit Manager Assisted Living Facility Unit Program Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the 2” day a 2010. Richard J. Shoop Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630
The Issue Whether the actions charged in the Administrative Complaint in the case of Respondent Kenneth Manderville, (Mr. Manderville), demonstrate that he does not have the moral character to qualify as a correctional and law enforcement officer as provided in Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Manderville holds correctional and law enforcement certificates issued by the Commission pursuant to the power vested in the Commission by Section 943.12(3). Mr. Manderville was employed as a deputy with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office for eight years, achieving the rank of sergeant. He was terminated for cause on October 11, 2000. Pursuant to Section 943.12(3), the Commission is empowered to certify and to revoke the certification of officers. Betty Prevatt (Mrs. Prevatt) is a resident of Palatka, Florida. On or about June 25, 2000, Mrs. Prevatt and her husband were involved in a domestic dispute. During the course of this dispute, her husband reached for his shotgun. As a result, Mrs. Prevatt fled her residence and ran down the adjacent highway. A helpful citizen rescued her by providing her with an automobile ride to the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Later in the evening of June 25, 2000, at the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Mrs. Prevatt came into contact with Sergeant Manderville, during the course of filing a domestic violence complaint with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. Subsequently, Sergeant Manderville caused the arrest and incarceration of Mr. Prevatt. Thereafter, Sergeant Manderville gave Mrs. Prevatt a ride in his patrol car to her home. While at the Prevatt home, Mrs. Prevatt told Sergeant Manderville that she did not wish to spend the night in her home so he told her to return to the Sheriff's Department in her automobile. Mrs. Prevatt came to the Sheriff's Department, as instructed by Mr. Manderville, around 11:30 P.M. Mr. Manderville told her to follow him in her car. He led her to a house owned by Mr. Manderville's parents. They entered the house. Mr. Manderville was in uniform and on duty. Subsequently he removed his uniform and engaged in sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt. Thereafter, he telephoned a woman's shelter and Mrs. Prevatt spent the night there. Subsequently Mrs. Prevatt called Mr. Manderville, on more than one occasion during the course of the next few days, and inquired as to the process required to extract her husband from the Putnam County Jail. Eventually Mr. Manderville told her that he would help her win the release of her husband, and ostensibly to facilitate that purpose, instructed her to meet him at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant after sunset. She did as requested and he told her to return to his parents' house. She complied with his direction. Upon entering his parents' house, he insisted on having sexual intercourse again. She submitted. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Afterwards, she returned to the shelter in which she was then residing, which was located in St. Augustine. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Manderville asked Mrs. Prevatt to meet him at the Sheriff's Department, allegedly for the purpose of finishing paperwork regarding Mr. Prevatt. In response, she met him as requested. Thereafter, he took her to an interview room, had sexual intercourse with her, withdrew, and ejaculated on the carpet. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Mrs. Prevatt's husband was released from jail a few days after his arrest but Mrs. Prevatt continued to live in the shelter. After a period of about two months, she went to the sheriff's office to retrieve her husband's shotgun. During a conversation at the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Manderville asked her to meet him after dark at the post office in Palatka. She did as asked. Mr. Manderville asked her to get in his patrol car and he then took her to his house in Mannville. After arriving at Mr. Manderville's house in Mannville, he required her to disrobe, had intercourse with her twice, and took pictures of her bent over the hood of his patrol car, while nude. All of this occurred while he was on duty and, except during the sexual activity, he was attired in his uniform. This was the last time that they had sexual contact. Almost three months later, Mrs. Prevatt again established a relationship with her husband. Mr. Prevatt began to inquire about Mrs. Prevatt's relationship with Mr. Manderville and she revealed what had occurred. On September 28, 2000, she gave a detailed report of the matter to Lieutenant Roger W. Sassaman and Detective Walter Perkins of the internal affairs section of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. On October 11, 2000, Mr. Manderville was discharged from his employment with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Manderville asserted that Mrs. Prevatt's statements with regard to sexual activity were fabrications. He claimed that Mrs. Prevatt was infatuated with him. He asserted that she called him on many occasions in furtherance of what she wanted to be a continuing romantic relationship but that he had resisted her. Mrs. Prevatt is a woman whose life has been beset with problems. At the time of the hearing she had endured an abusive marital situation for eighteen years. She has experienced problems maintaining steady employment and she has abused prescription drugs. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Mrs. Prevatt's version of the story was, in pertinent parts, true, and that Mr. Manderville's version lacks credibility. In arriving at that conclusion, the following matters were considered: Mrs. Prevatt was able to describe with particularity the interior of Mr. Manderville's parents' house and the interior of Mr. Manderville's residence. If she had not been taken to these places, she would not have been able to glean these details. Moreover, Mrs. Debbie Manderville, who married Mr. Manderville in 1996, in her attempt to discredit Mrs. Prevatt's knowledge of the interior of the two houses, succeeded only in demonstrating that Mrs. Prevatt did have an accurate recollection of the interiors. Mrs. Prevatt was aware that Mr. Manderville was married to a nurse because she heard him call her at the local hospital from Mrs. Manderville's home. This call was undoubtedly made for the purpose of insuring that Mrs. Manderville would not intrude while he was present there with Mrs. Prevatt. Mrs. Prevatt knew that Mr. Manderville's entire body, except for the pubic area, was cleanly shaved, at times pertinent. Mr. Manderville confirmed this in his testimony. Had she not seen him in the nude, she would not have been aware of this. Mrs. Prevatt was able to point out a spot on the interview room carpet where she claimed semen residue would be found. Mr. Manderville, when questioned about this at the hearing, did not deny that semen residue was found at that exact spot she identified. He stated, however, that it was produced not from illicit activity with Mrs. Prevatt, but through self- abuse. His version regarding the presence of the semen was unbelievable. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances elicited at the hearing, it is found by clear and convincing evidence that on four occasions Mr. Manderville had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt while he was on duty, when she was emotionally distraught, and under circumstances where he used his power as a law enforcement officer to take advantage of her in a stressful situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a final order be issued revoking the certification of Mr. Manderville as a law enforcement and correctional officer. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 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 Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections' alleged policy of forbidding phone calls between incarcerated husbands and wives, when the wives are incarcerated at Broward Women's Correctional Institution ("BWCI"), is an unpromulgated rule and therefore invalid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The parties stipulate that petitioner has standing to maintain this proceeding i.e. that he is substantially affected by the challenged agency policy. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution; his wife is incarcerated at Broward Women's Correctional Institution (BWCI). Both institutions are part of the state prison system operated by the Department. In August 1983, petitioner asked for permission to telephone his wife at BWCI, but his request was denied by Department officials. Under a BWCI policy, as well as a Department policy, inmates at other institutions are not normally allowed to place telephone calls to inmates at BWCI. The departmental policy is embraced by Rule 33-3.125(1)(e) , which provides: (e) Inmates may not receive incoming telephone calls because it is disruptive to normal operating and program functions of an institution. This rule effectively prohibits inmates from placing calls to inmates at other correctional institutions. Petitioner has not shown that the Department's denial of permission was dictated by any written statement or policy other than that contained in this Department rule.
The Issue Whether the Respondent used excessive force to subdue a prisoner, and whether the Respondent made false official statements about the incident.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Tony V. Walker, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 7, 1989, and issued Corrections Certificate No. 05-89-502-01; and on October 9, 1990, was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 05-90-222-01. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) At the time of the incident described in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was working as a certified correctional officer at the Liberty Correctional Institution in Bristol, Florida. On or about November 12, 1990, the Respondent was working in the E and F dormitories of the Liberty Correctional Institution supervising inmates with Correctional Officer Wanda Terry/Rogers and Sgt. Smith. While Officer Terry/Rogers was on the phone with the medical department of the institution, the dining hall attempted to notify dormitories E and F to release their inmates for the noontime meal. When the dining hall was unable to contact dormitories E and F, dormitories G and H were called and told to release their inmates for the meal. When the inmates in dormitory E realized that dormitories E and F had been skipped in the feeding schedule, they became rowdy and belligerent. The inmates gathered around the dormitory control station cursing and complaining at Officers Terry/Rogers and Walker. Sgt. Smith was not present, having been requested by the lieutenant to assist him in the dining hall during the meal period. Officer Walker, the Respondent, attempted to calm the inmates by entering dormitory E and explaining the situation, emphasizing that the E and F inmates would be the next to go to lunch. This calmed some of the inmates, but Owen Dampier continued his verbal remonstrations about being skipped. After Walker returned into the dormitory's control room, Dampier approached the voice screen to the control room and became increasingly verbally abusive to both Walker and Terry/Rogers. His actions were causing the other inmates to again become rowdy and both Terry/Rogers and Walker felt that if Dampier's acting-out continued, it would foment an inmate disturbance. Walker had picked up an inmate's walking cane which was kept in the office for security reasons. Walker was preparing to issue the cane to the inmate to whom it belonged when Dampier screamed at Terry/Rogers and him. Walker slammed the cane against the plexiglass window and whistled at Dampier, who had turned and was walking towards the inmates clustered near the control room. Walker called Dampier back to the control room, and told Dampier that he was going to be placed in the laundry room in isolation. Terry/Rogers observed that Walker at this time was calm and was not upset by Dampier. Having told Dampier that he was going to be placed in isolation, Walker opened the door to the control room to let in Dampier. The control room door was hinged on the left side and opened into the control room. It was secured by a dead bolt lock located over the door handle on the right side of the door. As Dampier entered the room, Terry/Rogers left the desk and moved to the laundry room door to open it. Dampier stepped into the control room and stopped immediately inside the room. At this point, Dampier attempted to engage in a debate with Walker about the meal delay and refused to proceed into isolation. Dampier was facing Walker, and Walker, still holding onto the door, was standing partially behind the door, holding the door handle with his left hand. Walker released the door and it closed but was not locked. The statements of Walker, Terry/Roger and Dampier about what occurred next differ in their specifics. The following findings are based upon the testimony of Walker and Terry/Rogers and the written statement of Dampier which is corroborative of both of their statements. Dampier described his posture at this juncture as "being in Walker's face." Both Walker and Dampier were in close proximity with one another. Walker reached with his left hand to lock the door which had closed, but which had not been locked. As Walker started to reach for the door lock, Dampier perceived that he was grabbing for him and slapped Walker's hand away. Terry/Rogers, observing from across the room, saw Walker reaching for the door and assumed that he was reaching for Dampier who was standing in front of the door handle and lock. When Dampier slapped Walker's hand away, Walker felt threatened and pushed Dampier away from him with his right hand. Terry/Rogers, across the room, perceived Walker's action as an effort by Walker to grab Dampier. However, because of the location of the two men and the laundry room, it would have been extremely awkward for Walker to have grabbed at Dampier with his right hand in an effort to lead him to the laundry room which was to Walker's right and Dampier's left. Dampier's statement confirms that when Walker pushed him, Dampier pushed Walker back. Walker described Dampier's pushing him, and stated that, at this point, he struck Dampier on the chin with his closed right fist and then wrestled Dampier to the floor. Both the testimony of Terry/Rogers and the statement of Dampier confirm this. After both men fell to the floor, Terry/Rogers first locked the door to the control room, and then called the main control room for assistance. Two correctional officers supervising the yard immediately outside the dormitory responded in seconds. With their assistance, the tussle between Dampier and Walker was stopped. The Superintendent of Liberty Correctional Institution appointed an investigating officer, Inspector Stone, who interviewed Terry/Rogers, Walker and Dampier on the afternoon of November 12, 1992. Walker denied grabbing Dampier. Walker stated that he struck Dampier after Dampier pushed him. Dampier stated that Walker had grabbed him (page 4 of Dampier's statement), and also that Walker grabbed at him (page 6 of Dampier's statement). Walker admitted physical contact with Dampier and admitted striking Dampier; however, Walker stated consistently that he no recollection of grabbing Dampier by the arm. Both Walker and Dampier describe the same occurrences. Dampier's statement reports "he (Walker) grabbed at me (when) I was in his face." (Emphasis supplied.) "Then he told me to come. . . (page 6) "I pulled back like this, here, I was going to walk a little bit." (page 4, paragraph 5) "When I snatched my arm back, that's when he came up to me and pushed me." (page 4, paragraph 6) "I thought maybe he was going to swing, so I kinda like shoved him back, and he came up to be mad and he swung . . . he hit me." (page 4, paragraph 13) Walker states, "I asked him to step to me (inside the officer's station), and when he did he, uh, bowed up and he walked over to me and I opened up the door[.] I asked him to step on back to the laundry room[.] [W]hen he did, he slapped my hand back, and pushed me back and things went from there. . ." (page 3). "I hit the glass to get his attention[.] [T]hen I came down and I asked him to step inside the officer station[.] I told him to step on back to the laundry room[,] and that is when he slapped my hand and pushed me back, and started swinging[.]" Page 4. "I had my hand out to open the door, and as he stepped in[,] I let it,. . . the door[,] go back in behind me, . . . I took my hand [and] put it by my side like this, and he slapped my hand back, and pushed me back. . . I have [sic] not touched him then, until, up until then, 'til the actual squabble itself. . . . No, sir, I didn't grab him by the arm." (page 5 and 6) "He pushed me backwards, . . . finally I pushed him back and he reared back and I hit. It happened mighty fast." (Walker, page 6). In summary, both men testified to the same events, in the same order. Just after Dampier entered the room, Walker made some motion with his hand, and Dampier slapped it away. Walker pushed Dampier away from himself after Dampier slapped his hand, and a scuffle ensued in which Walker struck Dampier. What Terry/Rogers observed from across the room was not Walker grabbing Dampier with his right hand, but Walker pushing Dampier away. The slapping of Walker's left hand by Dampier with his right hand, which occurred first, was not observed by Terry/Rogers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Tony V. Walker, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1993. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 24th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent did not file proposed findings. The proposed findings filed by the Petitioner were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-9 Paragraphs 1-9 Paragraphs 10,11 Walker advised Dampier he was going to be isolated before letting Dampier into the Control Room, and it was only after Dampier entered the Control Room that they had an argument. Paragraph 12 The testimony that Walker grabbed Dampier is rejected as being contrary to that of Walker's testimony which is corroborated by Dampier's statement. Paragraphs 13-15 Paragraph 17,18 Paragraphs 16 See Comments to Paragraph 12, above. Paragraphs 17,18 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 19-21 Paragraphs 19 and 23. Paragraph 22 The testimony of Stone, as quoted in the proposed finding, makes it appear that Walker changed his story. This is incorrect. Walker never denied striking Dampier, although, he denied having grabbed Dampier by the arm at the commencement of the altercation. Paragraph 23 Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Tony V. Walker 7002 Lois Street, Apt. B Callaway, FL 32404 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
