The Issue At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioner had filed applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses and was qualified except for the failure to demonstrate good moral character. The bases for the dispute over Petitioner's character were: Petitioner's arrest record; Petitioner's alleged falsification of his applications as to his employment with the Pittsburgh Police Department; and Petitioner's check for the application fee was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner duly filed applications with the Department of State, Division of Licensing for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses. Except for matters related to Petitioner's good moral character, Petitioner is qualified for licensure. Petitioner's application reflects that he answered the question whether he had been arrested affirmatively with the following comment: The Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in all five cases from 1965 to 1974 - ruled that as a Police Officer, I acted within the scope of my authority - These cases stem from being an undercover Narcotics Officer. The Petitioner's arrest records as maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveal several juvenile offenses, not considered by the Department and not at issue. This record also reveals the following arrests of Petitioner as an adult: Date Place Charge Disposition 06/09/66* Pittsburgh VDD & CA Not guilty 08/15/66* Pittsburgh VUFA Not guilty 08/20/66* Allegheny County VDDCA 06/24/67* Allegheny County VUFA Unavailable per contra 06/30/70 *Only one offense with different charges made on different dates 09/05/74 Allegheny County Theft, VUFA Discharged 09/23/74 05/07/75 Allegheny County Fraud - imper- sonating a public servant 12/19/79 Office of Provost No charge No charge Martial Petitioner presented testimony and supporting documentary evidence that the arrests reported on the FBI criminal history for the dates 06/09/66 through 06/24/67 were all related to the same offense, and that these charges were resolved in favor of the Petitioner by a verdict of not guilty. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The judge arrested judgment of the two years' probation for the charge of 05/07/75. See Respondent's Exhibit #2. Petitioner stated that based upon his status as a capital police officer he was not guilty of fraud or impersonation of a public servant. The Petitioner's remaining arrest was on 09/05/74, and was discharged. Petitioner's explanation of these arrests is not consistent with the explanation stated on his application form. According to the resume accompanying his application, Petitioner was employed on the indicated dates in the following positions: Date Position 1963 to 1965 Globe Security 1965 to 1970 Pittsburgh Police Department, special patrolman 1970 to 1973 NAACP special investigator and Bucci Detective Agency 1972 to 1976 Commonwealth Property Police with State of Pennsylvania 1973 to 1974 Part-time security guard in addition to employment listed above May, 1976 January, 1977 Federal Civil Service guard March, 1977 September, 1977 Part-time security guard with A&S Security December, 1978 Sears, Roebuck and Company as to June, 1980 undercover security investigator February, 1979 Security guard to June, 1980 September, 1979 VA, guard at VA Hospital GS5 to June, 1980 June, 1980 Came to Florida Petitioner stated that his check for the application fee bounced because of his travel back and forth to Pennsylvania to try to develop the data to support his application, which depleted his bank account. He has since made the check good and paid the fees by money order.
Recommendation The Petitioner has failed to establish that he has the requisite good character for licensure; therefore, it is recommended that the Petitioner's applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licensure be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Barnett 758 Woodville Road Milton, Florida 32570 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer 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 19th day of April, 1982. George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 242571, issued to him by Petitioner. On July 16, 2005, Respondent was involved in an altercation with Chelsey Traband, the woman he lived with in Cape Coral, Florida. In the course of the altercation, items were thrown around the interior of the house, Respondent damaged a closet door and window, and clothing was thrown into the front yard. These actions, and perhaps associated noise, caused a neighbor to call the Cape Coral Police Department, and two police officers went to the scene to investigate. The officers observed bruises on Ms. Traband's left arm, a minor scratch on her right arm, and three parallel scratches on the top of her right breast, one of which was relatively deep. In a statement made to Officer Frank Antos, Ms. Traband stated that the bruises and scratches were inflicted by Respondent. At the hearing, Ms. Traband attempted to recant the statements she made to Officer Antos on July 16, 2005, claiming that he told her what to say and threatened to arrest her and take her to jail if she did not make the statements. Much of Ms. Traband's testimony was evasive and lacking in credibility. She had a motive for lying, because she still lives with Respondent and does not want him to be disciplined. Sorting Ms. Traband's credible statements from her lies, it is found that Ms. Traband started the aggression by slapping and hitting Respondent. However, at some point, Respondent straddled Ms. Traband while she was on her back on a bed, grabbed her breast and twisted it violently. Although both Respondent and Ms. Traband testified under oath at the hearing that the marks on her breast were caused when Respondent pushed Ms. Traband away from him in self defense, the testimony was not credible. It contradicts the statement Ms. Traband made on July 16, 2005, and her former statement is consistent with the marks on her breast as depicted in the photographs. On the day of the incident, Ms. Traband told Sergeant Allan Kolak that Respondent had been smoking marijuana earlier that day, and she had thrown the pipe he had used to smoke the marijuana into the field behind the house. She showed Officer Antos where to find the pipe, and he found a small wooden pipe. Sergeant Kolak testified that the pipe was the kind used to smoke marijuana, it was not the kind of pipe used to smoke tobacco, and it had a smell that he knows from his training and experience is the smell of burned marijuana. After reading Respondent his Miranda rights, Sergeant Kolak questioned Respondent about the pipe, and Respondent volunteered that he had tried to smoke the marijuana residue in the pipe earlier that day.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Rozell L. Hester failed to maintain good moral character and ordering that his certification as a correctional officer be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by unlawfully acquiring or obtaining, or attempting to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge on or about July 16, 1999; by unlawfully withholding information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance on or between April 1, 1999, and August 5, 1999; by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself or others, to wit: prepared a fictitious Offense/Incident Report as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tad K. Moody, is a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 160029 on February 11, 1996. Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police officer during the period February 11, 1996, through May 19, 2000. In August of 1998, Respondent received an on-duty injury and was prescribed pain medications as a result. Respondent signed a contract with Dr. Greenberger stating that he would only receive controlled substances from Dr. Greenberger. Respondent went to several different doctors after August 1998 and received prescription pain medications from all of them. Respondent never advised his treating physicians that he was receiving Hydrocodone or other pain medication from each of his treating physicians. Respondent did not inform any of the physicians that he was receiving prescription pain medications from any of the other physicians. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent reported to his treating physician’s office that his vehicle was stolen with his medication in it. Dr. Batas required substantiation of the theft in the form of an auto theft report prior to issuing additional medication. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent prepared a false Tampa Police Department Offense/Incident Report, reporting that his vehicle containing medications had been stolen. He submitted it to Dr. Batas' office in order to receive additional medication. On August 4, 1999, Respondent presented a prescription for 90 Vicoprofen to the Eckerd Drug Store pharmacy at 1904 West Lumsden in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Steven J. Tresser, M.D., had written Respondent a prescription on August 4, 1999, for 40, not 90, Vicoprofen. The Eckerd Drug Store personnel identified Respondent as the individual who submitted the altered prescription for Vicoprofen or Hydrocodone. Respondent admitted to Detective Lusczynski, during an interview, that he had an addiction problem due to the back pain he suffered as a result of the injury he received in 1998. In late 1999, Respondent was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. On or about July 24, 2000, Respondent entered into a Drug Court Agreement for 18 months' probation with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's State Attorney's Office. As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to successfully complete the Drug Court Program, including evaluation; counseling; random urinalysis; and pay $372 court costs, plus $40 a month toward supervision. Respondent's drug case was dismissed on March 14, 2002, based on his successful completion of the Drug Court Program. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully acquired possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation on or about July 16, 1999. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance during the relevant time period. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent corruptly used, or attempted to use, his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself by preparing a fictitious Offense/Incident Report on or about July 16, 1999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tad K. Moody 10124 Woodberry Road Tampa, Florida 33619 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 The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct on July 27, 1983, which reduced his effectiveness as a law enforcement officer by committing a battery upon a police officer and failed to maintain good moral character as required pursuant to Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, and Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received including post-hearing documents submitted by Respondent, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. By its Administrative Complaint filed December 19, 1984, as amended, Petitioner seeks to revoke the certification of Respondent, Lamont Taylor, who was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 5, 1978. Respondent has been issued Certificate No. C-4405. On July 27, 1983, Respondent was stopped by Louis Churukian, a general patrolman employed by the Metro-Dade Police Force in excess of two years. Officer Churukian was employed on the 12-8 shift on July 27, 1983, and arrested Respondent for speeding, to wit, 50 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone on Northwest 163 Street in the area of 14th Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. In making the arrest, Respondent had to be apprehended with Officer Churukian using his emergency equipment (siren and emergency lights) for more than two blocks. When Officer Churukian was able to get Respondent to pull over, Respondent was told that he was observed speeding (50 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone) whereupon Respondent was asked to tender his driver's license. Respondent was unable to produce his driver's license and he remained belligerent and hostile to Officer Churukian throughout the time that he was being arrested. Due to Respondent's hostile attitude, Officer Churukian requested the assistance of a backup officer who assisted in taking Respondent to a Metro-Dade police station for booking. Prior to placing Respondent under arrest, Officer Churukian asked Respondent if he had any weapons on his person whereupon Respondent advised that he had a gun in his waistband. Officer Churukian removed the weapon from Respondent's waistband which was a Smith and Wesson 357 revolver loaded with 6 rounds of "upper jacketed" ammunition. Respondent was transported to Station G where he was fingerprinted and booked for failure to produce a driver's license and later for battery upon a police officer. After Respondent was booked and his handcuffs were removed, he approached Officer Churukian without warning and struck him in the soft tissue area of his throat. Officer Churukian was administered emergency treatment for soreness and inflammation in the soft tissue area of his throat. Throughout the arrest and booking procedure, Officer Churukian did not engage in any act which might be regarded as provocative to prompt Respondent to strike him. In what has been described as a "sucker punch" by Officer Charlie Lee Daye, a correctional officer employed in a shakedown area of the Metro-Dade County Jail since approximately May 29, 1976, Respondent knocked Officer Churukian to the floor of the police station. Angel Nieves, a special response technician for Metro-Dade Police Force for a period in excess of thirteen years, was called upon to assist Officer Churukian to take Respondent to the jail. Special response technicians are always called upon when there are charges made against fellow police or correctional officers in Dade County. While Officer Churukian took Respondent to the jail, he was not abusive and Officer Nieves saw nothing that would prompt Respondent to strike Officer Churukian. Respondent failed to offer any mitigating testimony or other evidence to refute the allegations set forth in the Petitioner's charges filed herein. On April 5, 1994, respondent was accepted as a candidate for the State's Attorney's Deferred Prosecution Program and therefore he Respondent was not adjudicated guilty of the charges filed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's Certificate Number C-4405 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 8th of July 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Rand, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lamont Taylor 14404 NW 15 Drive Miami, Florida 33167 Darylp McLaughlin Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Since July 1, 1981, Respondent had been a certified correctional officer, holding certificate number C-3285. Currently, Respondent is no longer employed as a correctional officer. However, on January 10, 1987, Respondent was employed as the arsenal officer at the Union County Correctional Institution. Prior to and including January 10, 1987, Respondent had been experiencing a great deal of marital difficulty with his wife, Candy. Sometime around January 10, the Raulerson's decided to part company. On January 10 at about 5:15 p.m., Candy Raulerson asked Sheriff Deputy Joseph Guyott to accompany her to the marital residence in order to pick up some of her things. Upon arriving Deputy Guyott observed a sign on the door warning persons to enter at their own risk. No one appeared to be at home. He, also, observed a shotgun shell attached to the door and a fishing line attached to the door handle at one end and to a buried beer can at the other end. The shell could be clearly seen. Ms. Raulerson's things had been placed outside the home in the rain. Upon observing the shell arrangement at the front door, Deputy Guyott secured the area and called the Sheriff. Once the Sheriff arrived, he began to investigate the area around the residence. At the back door of the residence the Sheriff discovered a tear gas or smoke canister 1/ attached to a line at one end and tied to the back door at the other end. The line had so much slack in it that nothing would happen when the door was opened. More importantly, the canister had been rendered inoperable by bending over the firing pin and taping the spoon. The canister was neither explosive nor poisonous. Petitioner, therefore, failed to prove any violation of Section 790.161, Florida Statutes. Upon entering the residence through the back door the Sheriff walked to the front door. He observed that the shotgun shell had been attached to an electric cord. The cord was attached to the brass end of the shell. However, the Sheriff could not remember whether the cord was attached to the shell's primer. The cord was run behind the sofa, but was not plugged in. No evidence was presented by Petitioner as to the explosive potential, if any, of this arrangement. Petitioner, therefore, failed to prove that Respondent had violated Section 790.161, Florida Statutes. More importantly, however, is that the evidence is clear that Respondent had absolutely no intent to harm anyone, 2/ but only wished to scare off any person attempting entry. The Sheriff admitted that after seeing the front and back door arrangements that it was apparent that Respondent did not intend to hurt anyone and neither arrangement was rigged to do any damage. Petitioner's evidence only demonstrates that Respondent was defending his property from his wife's meddling during a time when they were experiencing a great deal of marital difficulty. Respondent utilized a scare tactic that was not dangerous and not intended to hurt anyone, but only to keep someone out during his absence. Respondent did not commit any crime by rigging the canister and the shell in the manner he did. Moreover, Respondent's actions do not demonstrate any lack of good moral character on his part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on account of race or gender when the Respondent re-assigned her from police corporal to police officer in October 1994.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 1982, the City of Tampa Police Department (Respondent) employed Linda Baker-James (Petitioner) as a police officer. The Petitioner is a black female. The Petitioner has been involved in multiple incidents resulting in imposition of disciplinary action by the Respondent. These disciplinary actions include a suspension related to untruthfulness in department matters, numerous reprimands and suspensions for tardiness, a reprimand for failure to honor a subpoena, and a reprimand for careless operation of a police vehicle. In 1992, the Petitioner was assigned to work as a school resource officer (SRO) at Oak Grove Junior High School. The rank of SRO is the equivalent to a police corporal. While working as the SRO, disciplinary problems continued. She received a reprimand for failure to submit required documentation, a letter of counseling related to failure to comply with regulations, a letter of counseling related to excessive tardiness, and refusal to direct traffic to assist the departure of students from the school grounds. On March 25, 1993, she received a Notice of Disciplinary Action related to failure to submit required reports. According to the documentation, also on March 25, 1993, the Petitioner was advised by letter that continuing unacceptable performance would result in her removal from the SRO program. On June 30, 1993, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for excessive tardiness. By written notice, the Petitioner was placed on "special evaluation status" on July 19, 1993, related to continuing unacceptable job performance issues. The notice started that failure to demonstrate improvement according to a remedial training plan would result in reassignment. On July 10, 1994, the Petitioner was reassigned from Oak Grove Junior High School to a position as police corporal in Patrol Unit District One. The transfer was a lateral move. The Petitioner does not allege that the July 1994 reassignment was based on race or gender, or that the transfer was indicative of any discrimination. Some of the officers in District One were aware of the job performance issues and were not pleased by her assignment to the unit. There is no evidence that any of the officers who were aware of such factors discriminated against the Petitioner in any manner, or that race or gender issues formed any basis for their opinions of her performance. District One Captain Robert Price reviewed the Petitioner’s personnel records when he learned of the reassignment and expressed concern over her disciplinary record. There is no evidence that his concern was based on the Petitioner’s race or gender. There is no evidence that race or gender issues formed any basis for his opinion of her performance. Captain Price met with the Petitioner when she began her duties with District One and offered encouragement to her, including making specific suggestions related to correcting her problems with tardiness. Job performance problems continued throughout the Petitioner’s assignment as a police corporal in District One. On August 2, 1994, the Petitioner was inexplicably delayed in responding to a burglary call. At approximately 4:39 a.m., she was on duty in a patrol vehicle. By radio, the Petitioner was assigned to respond to a possible burglary call. At 4:40 a.m., Sergeant J. M. Marks, a white female on patrol duty, was assigned as backup to the Petitioner. Sergeant Marks arrived at the scene at 4:42 a.m. and discovered a broken front window at a business. She waited for the Petitioner to arrive before investigating further. The Petitioner arrived at 4:54 a.m., 15 minutes after receiving the assignment, and 12 minutes after Sergeant Marks arrived at the scene as the Petitioner’s backup. The Petitioner was less than five miles from the possible burglary site when she received her assignment at 4:39 a.m. There is no credible explanation for her tardy response to the potential burglary assignment. At 4:39 a.m., unimpeded by traffic, the total transit time from the Petitioner’s location at the time she received the call to the location of the burglary call is substantially less than 15 minutes. Even during daytime traffic, and complying with all traffic laws, transit time of less than 15 minutes is possible. By report dated August 20, 1994, the incident was recorded in a memo from Sergeant Marks to the Petitioner. Marks was concerned that the Petitioner’s tardy response posed a threat to Marks’ safety, and expressed her displeasure in the memo. Later on August 20, 1994, the Petitioner responded to an alleged stabbing incident. Upon arriving at the scene, the Petitioner determined that the stabbing victim was too intoxicated to provide useful information, and decided to release him to the custody of one of his neighbors. The Petitioner asked a neighbor to have the victim contact the Petitioner when he was not intoxicated. She filed no official written report documenting her response to the stabbing report. Apparently later that same night, the Petitioner responded to a possible suicide call. The suicide attempt involved an excessive but apparently non-fatal dose of a pain reliever. Although the Petitioner accompanied the victim to the hospital, she filed no official written report of her response to the potential suicide situation. The appropriateness of an officer’s response to a citizen’s call is established through preparation and review of a police report. Police investigations are initiated by the filing of an officer’s report. The failure to file a report results in no follow-up investigation. The requirement to prepare and file a report is part of every officer’s responsibility. The Petitioner’s failure to prepare or file the reports was cited in an August 20, 1994, written report from Sergeant Marks to Captain Price. The issue of tardiness continued to be of concern to the department. On September 1, 1994, the Petitioner was scheduled for an in-service training program at the police academy. Sergeant Marks talked to the Petitioner the previous night and advised that Marks would meet her at the academy before the training began at 8:00 a.m. to take care of some paperwork with the Petitioner. Marks arrived at the academy at 7:40 a.m. and waited for approximately 25 minutes, until after the training session had started, before leaving. The Petitioner had not arrived by the time Marks left. In a September 1, 1994, memo to Captain Price, Sergeant Marks reported the tardiness incident. Captain Price began a review of the Petitioner’s job performance issues. By memo dated September 26, 1994, to Police Chief B. R. Holder, a black male, Captain Price recommended that she be reassigned to the position of police officer. At the time the memo was transmitted to Chief Holder, Captain Price relieved the Petitioner of her supervisory responsibilities. Captain Price has never recommended that an officer be demoted, but believed the Petitioner’s performance deficiencies were of such serious nature to warrant the action. On October 21, 1994, the Petitioner received her annual performance evaluation, prepared by three supervisors, Sergeant Stertzer, Sergeant Curry, and Sergeant Marks, who had supervised the Petitioner at times during the evaluation period. Although the evaluators identified areas where the Petitioner’s performance was acceptable, all also identified numerous deficiencies. Sergeant Stertzer is a white male. Stertzer supervised the Petitioner during part of the period she worked as an SRO. He reported that the Petitioner’s "chronic tardiness problem" improved "with very close supervision." He also noted, however, that she failed to report to the school administrative office upon her morning arrival, violating an agreement reached between the parties to address complaints about her tardiness from an earlier evaluation period. Sergeant Stertzer reported that the Petitioner failed to maintain the safe status of her patrol vehicle, including malfunctioning brakes and a lose steering wheel, either of which constituted a "significant danger to anyone traveling in the vehicle or other vehicles sharing the same traffic way." He also noted that the Petitioner left a vinyl zipper pistol bag containing her revolver in plain view between the two front seats of the vehicle, constituting an "invitation to theft." Sergeant Stertzer also reported that she put forth no exceptional effort in her job. He noted that there were strained relations with school administrators and staff, and that she "tended to rationalize on occasion." The Petitioner does not substantially disagree with Sergeant Stertzer’s evaluation of her performance. Sergeant Curry is a black female. Curry supervised the Petitioner during part of the period she worked as an SRO. Sergeant Curry wrote that the Petitioner failed to follow unidentified police procedures during an incident referred to as "cracker day" which apparently involved a threat of organized violent activity at the school. The threat was widely known, resulted in expressions of parental concern, and in attention from local news media. Sergeant Curry addressed another incident when, while Curry was at the school, she and the Petitioner observed a crying female student. The Petitioner approached the student and talked to her, then returned to Curry to state that the student had been told that some gang members were going to kill her and she was scared. The Petitioner advised Curry that the student was told to go to class and that the Petitioner would check on the student later. Curry insisted that the matter be addressed immediately. The child was removed from class, and both the child’s parent and the school principal were notified of the situation. Curry later verbally counseled the Petitioner regarding her intended delay in responding to the alleged threat. Curry wrote that in order to address the tardiness issue, a plan had been implemented which required the Petitioner to check in with the administration office upon her morning arrival. Curry wrote that the Petitioner "occasionally projected a defensive, threatened attitude when broached by a supervisor for constructive criticism or disciplinary purposes." The Petitioner disagrees with Sergeant Curry’s evaluation of her performance. Sergeant Marks is a white female. Sergeant Marks wrote that the Petitioner’s "effort to improve her job performance was marginal." Marks noted that the Petitioner had allowed her driver’s license to expire on September 20, 1994, and that the expiration was discovered on October 7, 1994, in a "routine check in preparation for this evaluation." Sergeant Marks noted that her relationship with other officers in District One was "strained" and that "[s]he did not appear very comfortable in the role of a supervisor," but also wrote that she had shown recent improvement and was working to correct the situation. Sergeant Marks wrote that while professional in her dealings with the public, the Petitioner "needs to learn to deal with things on a professional level and that constructive criticism is not a personal attack." Sergeant Marks also noted the burglary response delay, the stabbing incident, the suicide response, and tardiness issues that are addressed elsewhere herein. The Petitioner disagrees with Sergeant Marks’ evaluation of her performance. Tampa Police Chief Holder accepted Captain Price’s recommendation for demotion. On October 23, 1994, the Petitioner was demoted from her position as police corporal to police officer. In November 1994, the Petitioner filed a grievance related to her reassignment. In the grievance, the Petitioner asserted that the demotion was made without "just cause." There was no assertion that the reassignment was related to race or gender. The parties resolved the grievance through a settlement agreement. The agreement provided that the Petitioner would lose no pay in the demotion. The agreement further provided that the Petitioner would be promoted to Master Patrol Officer if her next annual evaluation achieved an "outstanding" rating. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner received assistance from the Respondent in an attempt to address the identified deficiencies. The Petitioner was assigned to work with Sergeant Rousseau, a 14-year veteran of the department. Sergeant Rousseau and the Petitioner created a plan, monitored on a monthly basis, to remedy the deficiencies. Despite Sergeant Rousseau’s assistance, the Petitioner did not get an "outstanding" rating in the next annual evaluation. In October 1995, shortly after receiving the evaluation, the Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the FCHR. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner’s reassignment from police corporal to police officer was related to race or gender. The evidence fails to establish that any of the employment actions taken by the Respondent towards the Petitioner are related to race or gender. The Petitioner asserts that the she was treated differently than a white male SRO, Anthony Cangelosi, who was also transferred back to the patrol force. The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Cangelosi received formal training prior to his return as a patrol officer after working 12 years as an SRO. The Petitioner further asserts that Corporal Cangelosi received special treatment from fellow officers and his sergeant, including the opportunity to ride with other officers on patrol in order to become comfortable with his new assignment. There is no evidence that Corporal Cangelosi received formal training as alleged by the Petitioner. There is no evidence that Corporal Cangelosi received any special treatment as alleged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserts that the she was treated differently than a white male officer, Michael Niemi, who was also placed on "special evaluation." The evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that during 1994 or 1995, Corporal Niemi was demoted to an officer’s position based on evaluation by his District One supervisor. After being placed on special evaluation, Mr. Niemi was transferred to District Two patrol unit. Unlike the Petitioner’s disciplinary history, Corporal Niemi had no history of disciplinary problems. Other than his problem with the District One supervisor, Mr. Niemi had never been advised of any job performance deficiencies. While on "special evaluation" Mr. Niemi received two "outstanding" evaluation ratings. There is no evidence that Mr. Niemi received any special consideration based on race or gender. There is no evidence that Mr. Niemi’s transfer to District Two was based on race or gender. There is no evidence that Mr. Niemi’s evaluations were based on race or gender.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination filed against the City of Tampa Police Department by Linda Baker-James. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaydell Wright-Douglas, Esquire The Wright Building, Suite A 110 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Mark A. Hanley, Esquire Kelly L. Soud, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
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
