The Issue Whether the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should revoke Respondent's license to carry concealed weapons or firearms for the reason set forth in the Administrative Complaint, to wit: that "Respondent is ineligible for licensure pursuant to Sections 790.06(2)(d) and 790.23, Florida Statutes."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent currently holds a concealed weapons or firearms license (license number W96-09874, effective June 14, 1996). On September 21, 1981, in the Superior Court of Cochise County, Arizona, Respondent was adjudicated guilty (based upon a guilty plea that he had previously entered) of two counts of forgery, a class 4 felony under the laws of the State of Arizona, and placed on probation for a period of three years under the supervision of the Cochise County Adult Probation Department. He had no prior criminal record at the time of his convictions. As a condition of his probation, Respondent was required to "pay restitution through the Adult Probation Department in the amount of $1,617.19, less the $350.00 payment he ha[d] already made, such amount payable in monthly installments of $100.00, beginning with the month of October 1981." On September 11, 1984, Respondent's probation was "extended for three (3) years to provide additional time for full payment of restitution." Respondent made such "full payment of restitution" on or about September 8, 1987. By court order issued September 24, 1987, Respondent was "discharged absolutely" from his probation. The order contained the following advisement: The defendant is advised that rights may be restored as provided in the following statutes: 13-912 Restoration of civil rights; automatic for first offenders. 2/ 13-905 Restoration of civil rights; persons completing probation 13-907 Setting aside judgment of convicted person upon discharge; making of application; release from disabilities; exceptions. 13-908 Restoration of civil rights in the discretion of the Superior Court Judge. Because he was a "first offender," Respondent was under the impression that, following his discharge from probation, he enjoyed the same rights that he had enjoyed prior to his convictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's concealed weapons or firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since April 30, 1982, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds certificate number 08-82-002- 01. Respondent is now, and has been since early 1982, employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as the "FHP"). He currently holds the rank of sergeant, a rank he has held since 1986, with the exception of a brief period of time in 1990 when he served as a lieutenant. As a sergeant, Respondent is responsible, on a regular basis, for the direct supervision of eight troopers. There are occasions, however, when as many as 40 troopers are under his supervision. During the time that he has been with the FHP, Respondent has received numerous commendations and his overall work performance has been rated as either satisfactory or above. Only twice during the period of his employment has he been disciplined- - in 1983, for the negligent operation of his FHP vehicle, for which he received a written reprimand, and, more recently, for the incidents which gave rise to the issuance of the instant Amended Administrative Complaint. These incidents all occurred during the time Respondent held the rank of lieutenant. Respondent was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the investigative section of the FHP's Troop "E" in Miami on or about February 1, 1990. His duties included working out of uniform (in civilian clothes) investigating driver's license fraud. Among the other investigative lieutenants assigned to Troop "E" with whom Respondent worked were Lieutenants Jimmy Hobbie, Paul Sharpe and Kenneth Glass. Respondent shared an office with Lieutenant Hobbie. They each had their own desk. Lieutenants Sharpe and Glass occupied other nearby offices. Respondent enjoyed a congenial, professional relationship with his fellow investigative lieutenants. At no time did he ever have an exchange of angry or threatening words with them. On at least three separate occasions between February 19, 1990 and April 15, 1990, while in his office and in the presence of Lieutenants Hobbie and Sharpe, with whom, at the time, he was engaged in casual, light conversation injected with attempts at humor, Respondent removed his .38 caliber FHP-issued service revolver from his holster, placed it near the side of his head, pulled the hammer partially back, and, without firing any shots, returned the revolver to his holster. On none of these occasions did Respondent intend to harm or threaten anyone. He was simply trying to be funny. Neither Hobbie nor Sharpe, however, were amused by Respondent's careless and potentially dangerous display of his firearm. 1/ To the contrary, they were troubled by Respondent's actions, but they did not express their concerns to Respondent. On March 30, 1990, Respondent displayed a firearm in arresting an individual named Mark Barken for driver's license fraud. Prior to locating and arresting Barken, Respondent had been told by Barken's brother that Barken was a heroin addict and that Barken had recently threatened the brother with a shotgun and told the brother that he was going to kill him and his wife. Based upon the information he had been provided by the brother, Respondent considered Barken to be an unstable, dangerous and violent individual. Therefore, when he received a tip that Barken was at a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility in Perrine, he asked Lieutenant Hobbie to accompany him to the facility to assist in arresting Barken. Hobbie agreed to provide such backup support. Respondent and Lieutenant Hobbie drove to Perrine and waited together outside the facility for Barken to leave. After a while, Respondent left the surveillance area for brief moment. When he returned, Hobbie advised him that Barken, or at least someone who looked like Barken, had just left the facility. Respondent thereupon got into his FHP vehicle and drove off in the direction Hobbie had told him Barken was headed. Hobbie remained behind in the surveillance area. Shortly thereafter Respondent spotted Barken, who was with a companion. As Respondent approached the two, they ran across the street into a parking lot. Respondent followed them. As he pulled into the lot, he identified himself as a law enforcement officer 2/ and ordered Barken and his companion to stop, turn around and face him with their hands up. The pair stopped, but they did not comply with Respondent's other directives, even after these directives had been given several times. Believing that it would be prudent to do so, Respondent took a shotgun with him as he exited the vehicle and initially held it in a port-arms position in an effort to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, Respondent did gain control of the situation. When Lieutenant Hobbie arrived on the scene, Barken and his companion were laying face down on the pavement and Respondent was pointing a shotgun in their direction. 3/ Following Hobbie's arrival, Respondent placed the shotgun back in his vehicle and Barken and his companion were taken into custody. On or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, while seated at his desk in the office he shared with Lieutenant Hobbie, Respondent jokingly pointed his revolver out the open doorway of the office and in the direction of a reception area. As he did so, he commented to Hobbie, who was in the office with him, "Wonder what he would do if he would, you know, look up and see me pointing this gun at him." From where he was situated, Hobbie was unable to see the person to whom Respondent was referring. After making this comment, Respondent put the gun back in his holster. At around lunchtime, on or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, Respondent walked into Lieutenant Sharpe's office and the two began to engage in a friendly conversation. Their discussion centered upon their plans for lunch. During the conversation, Respondent was standing immediately in front of the desk at which Sharpe was seated. At some point in their discussion, Respondent decided that he needed to tuck his shirt in his pants. Before loosening his pants, he unholstered his service revolver and laid the revolver on Sharpe's desk. As Respondent placed the revolver on the desk, he carelessly pointed the barrel of the gun in Sharpe's direction and pulled the hammer partially back. Sharpe reacted by quickly changing his position to avoid being in the line of fire in the event the revolver discharged. Respondent saw Sharpe's reaction. He immediately removed the revolver from the desk and placed it back in his holster without bothering to tuck in his shirt. Although concerned about this incident, Lieutenant Sharpe did not discuss his concerns with Respondent; 4/ however, he did report the incident shortly after it had occurred to Randy Snow, who was his, as well as Respondent's, immediate supervisor. 5/ On April 25, 1990, Respondent and Lieutenants Hobbie, Sharpe and Glass were standing in close proximity to one another in the secretarial area of Troop "E" headquarters and engaged in informal and friendly conversation when Respondent, in response to a remark make by Hobbie and in an effort to be humorous, removed his service revolver from his holster, pointed it at Hobbie's head and pulled the hammer partially back. Hobbie turned his head to the side and ducked. Glass threw his hands up and exclaimed, "That's loaded," in response to which Respondent stated, "I know it is." Respondent then put the revolver back in his holster. At the time of this April 25, 1990, incident, an internal investigation of Respondent's conduct was already underway. During the course of the investigation, Respondent, who had not yet completed his probationary period as a lieutenant, was returned to the rank of sergeant and placed on "administrative duty." Following the conclusion of the investigation, Respondent was dismissed by the FHP on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The FHP subsequently determined that it did not have just cause to dismiss Respondent for fitness deficiencies. Accordingly, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Respondent, it rescinded Respondent's dismissal and instead suspended Respondent for ten days without pay for the improper display of a weapon. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, Respondent successfully participated in the FHP's Employee Assistance Program. He also took a firearms retraining course, which he also successfully completed. Since Respondent's return to work, his overall work performance has been rated as exceeding performance standards and he has received a letter of commendation from his supervisor. There have not been any reoccurrences of the improper conduct for which he was suspended. Apparently, he has mended his ways. He is today considered to be an effective, hard working and honest law enforcement officer who is an asset to the FHP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, by virtue of his having engaged in the conduct described in Findings of Fact 10, 18, 19 and 21 of this Recommended Order, and (2) issuing him a written reprimand and placing him on probation for a period of two years, during which time he shall be required to undergo firearms training and meet any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1993. 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 27th day of April, 1993.
Findings Of Fact In 1932, Respondent was driving one of three cars involved in an automobile accident in Ohio. Respondent was approximately 18 years old. Two females in one of the automobiles not driven by Respondent died in the accident. They were Ms. Clara Shaw and Ms. Betty Montgomery. In January, 1933, Respondent was indicted for manslaughter of Ms. Montgomery. 2/ Respondent was also indicted for "failure to stop in case of an automobile accident" ("failure to stop"). Manslaughter was a felony in Ohio in 1933. Failure to stop was not a felony. 3/ Respondent initially pled not guilty to both manslaughter and failure to stop. Pursuant to a plea bargain between Respondent's attorney and the state attorney, Respondent subsequently changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to both manslaughter and failure to stop. In exchange for Respondent entering a guilty plea, Respondent was sentenced to six months in the county jail and placed on probation for one year. Respondent served only 37 days of his sentence. The balance of his sentence and the imposition of court costs was suspended during the court's April term. Respondent successfully completed his probation. Respondent was not found guilty of manslaughter in Ohio in 1933. There is no adjudication of guilt in the court file for either manslaughter or failure to stop. Only a certificate of sentence appears in the court file. A certificate of sentence was entered only for failure to stop. No certificate of sentence was entered for manslaughter. In 1933, Section 12404 of the Ohio General Code required a person who was found guilty of manslaughter to be: . . . imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than twenty years. The court had no authority to find Respondent guilty of manslaughter and then either impose a sentence of less than one year or allow Respondent to serve out that sentence anywhere except the state penitentiary. 4/ The court sentenced Respondent to six months in the county jail. Respondent served only 37 days of his six month sentence. None of those days were served in the state penitentiary. Respondent remained in Ohio until he moved to Florida in 1940 or 1941. The state of Ohio never prevented Respondent from exercising his civil rights. Once Respondent reached the age of 21, he voted in local, state, and national elections in Ohio. Respondent also voted in local, state, and national elections in Florida for 50 years. 5/ Respondent served in the U.S. military for 2 1/2 years after his criminal conviction in Ohio. Thereafter, Respondent was employed in the defense industry by North American Aviation and by Martin Marietta from 1951 through 1977. Respondent had a confidential security clearance at North American Aviation and a secret security clearance at Martin Marietta. 6/ Respond disclosed his Ohio criminal record during security checks required for both North American Aviation and Martin Marietta. Respondent has been licensed to carry a concealed weapon in Florida for approximately seven years. He is applying for the third renewal of that license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of being "found guilty" of a felony in another state, within the meaning of Section 790.23(1)(d), and granting Respondent's request for the license at issue in this proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $100 fine for each of the class III violations which have been established, for a total fine of $1200, but that no additional fine be assessed for the unclassified violations. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dorothy K. Emrick Oakland Park Retuirement Annex Ageing and Adult Service, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 John Marfilius Oakland Park Retirement Annex Ageing and Adult Services, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether the Order of Fine was properly imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Watsons admit that they placed a large amount of fill dirt on their property. The property upon which the fill was placed is a vacant lot (Lot 13) that is contiguous to the property upon which the Watsons reside. The Watsons also admit that they did not obtain a permit from Lake County that authorized them to place the fill dirt on Lot 13. Lake County Code Enforcement Special Master Charles Johnson issued an Order of Enforcement on September 14, 2007, which required the Watsons to remove the fill dirt or to obtain a “proper permit” within 14 days. The Watsons appealed the Order of Enforcement to the circuit court, which remanded the case to the Special Master to allow the parties an opportunity to file written memoranda in support of their positions. Following the remanded an identical Order of Enforcement was issued by the Special Master on May 10, 2008. The Watsons did not want to remove the fill dirt. Therefore, after the 2007 Order of Enforcement was issued, Mr. Watson contacted Lake County staff to obtain a permit. Mr. Watson said he spoke to Jennifer Meyers, the development processing coordinator in the Public Works Department to obtain a permit for lot grading, but she told him that department only issued development orders for subdivisions. Mr. Watson spoke to Carmen Carroll in the Building Services Division about obtaining a building permit for lot grading. She told him the County did not issue building permits for lot grading. Ms. Carroll stated at the hearing that her division had never issued a building permit for lot grading, alone. Lot grading is often involved in a building permit, but only as a part of a proposal to construct a building. Mr. Watson said he arranged in September 2007 to meet on site with an engineer from the Public Works Department, but the engineer cancelled the meeting without an explanation. Mr. Watson claims that Lake County thwarted his efforts to obtain the proper permit for the fill dirt through the failure of its employees to tell him what permit to get. Lake County bears some responsibility for the confusion that existed about the "proper permit" that was needed. However, the Watsons' efforts to obtain a permit fell short of reasonable. Mr. Watson says he told the Lake County employees he needed a permit to satisfy the Order of Enforcement, but his testimony on this point was vague. It was not made clear that all of these County employees understood the circumstances of the Order of Enforcement and the daily fine the Watsons were facing. There is no evidence that Mr. Watson, when confronted with the responses from Ms. Meyers and Ms. Carroll, requested to speak to their supervisors or asked them to contact the County Attorney's office so that the issue could be resolved. There is no evidence that the Watsons sought information about the proper permit from the code enforcement staff of the County. There is no evidence that Mr. Watson contacted the Lake County Attorney's office until many months later. Mr. Watson said that after the 2008 Order of Enforcement was issued, he saw no purpose in speaking again with Lake County staff about obtaining a permit because he thought it would be a waste of time. That was not reasonable behavior. It was not reasonable for the Watsons to let daily fines accumulate for months because they were frustrated by the statements made by some County employees. Furthermore, the Watsons' attorney, Allison Strange, immediately began settlement negotiations with the County's legal staff in which the parties contemplated Lake County's issuance of a permit in a couple of weeks. The Watsons put an end to those discussions when they refused to provide engineering support for their lot grading proposal. The County was concerned about a steep slope on the northwest part of Lot 13 and fill dirt in the drainage easement. The Watsons proposed to install a retaining wall called a “Sierra Slope System.” Mr. Watson claimed that the proposal was “rejected” by the County, but the County simply told the Watsons that the proposal would have to be submitted by a licensed engineer in order to be evaluated. That was a reasonable request, but Mr. Watson did not want to spend the money for an engineer. The Watsons never applied for a permit for the fill dirt before the Order of Fine was issued. Taking all of the relevant evidence into account, it is found that the Watsons were not prevented by Lake County from obtaining a permit for the fill dirt. A claim not raised by the Watsons until the hearing in this appeal is that they do not owe any fines because Lake County abated the daily fines during settlement negotiations in May 2008 and the abatement was never lifted. On May 22, 2008, Ms. Strange sent a letter to Assistant County Attorney LeChea Parsons indicating their agreement about abating the fines: I appreciate your agreement to abate the issuance of any fines against Mr. and Mrs. Watson until Lake County has had adequate time to perform its inspections and issue the development order or permit, as ordered by the Special Master. Per our discussion this morning, it seems that Tuesday, June 10, 2008 would provide sufficient time and that no fine would accrue prior to then. The parties agree that one purpose of the May 2008 letter was to try to resolve the matter before the Watsons' deadline for filing an appeal of the Order of Enforcement. A Lake County employee made an inspection of Lot 13 and the County told the Watsons, through their attorney, Ms. Strange, of the County's concerns about the existing grading. The Watsons responded with their proposal for the Sierra Slope System. However, when the Watsons refused to submit their proposal through an engineer the negotiations broke down and the Watsons filed the appeal. The County contends that it only agreed to abate the fines until June 10, 2008. The fact that the Watsons did not raise the issue of the abatement until the hearing in this case suggests that at the time of the settlement negotiations in 2008, the Watsons did not think the fines had been abated beyond June 10, 2008. Taking all the relevant record evidence into account, the most reasonable meaning to ascribe to the parties' representations and actions is that the abatement of fines was to last until June 10, 2008, because that was considered sufficient time to get a permit and was the last day to settle the dispute before an appeal was filed. When the Watsons refused to submit engineering plans and filed the appeal, the negotiations were terminated and so was the abatement of fines. The County claims that because the Watsons never came into compliance with the Order of Enforcement, the offer of the abatement of fines had no effect. However, just because the negotiations were unsuccessful does not void the period of abatement. The fines were abated from May 27, 2008 (the deadline for compliance set out in the Order of Enforcement) through June 10, 2008, a period of 15 days. It does not appear from the record that the Watsons had further contact with Lake County officials about obtaining a permit until October 2009. During this period, the parties were in litigation over the Order of Enforcement. In an email dated October 15, 2009, Mr. Watson asked Ms. Marsh to tell him what “proper permit” he needed. Ms. Marsh replied that the proper permit would be a building permit. Even after being so informed, Mr. Watson still did not apply for a building permit. On September 14, 2009, the Watsons' property was inspected by Lake County Code Enforcement Inspector Jessica Jorge who observed that the fill had not been removed. An Affidavit of Non-Compliance was prepared, but it does not appear from the record that it was referred to the Special Master. On April 22, 2010, Ms. Jorge inspected the property again and she observed that the fill had still not been removed. Ms. Jorge checked the records of the County and determined that no permit had been issued for the fill. Ms. Jorge executed an Affidavit of Non-Compliance, which was presented to Special Master Johnson. On May 12, 2010, Special Master Johnson, without a hearing, entered the Order of Fine. He ordered the Watsons to pay a fine for non-compliance during the period from May 27, 2008 (the deadline for compliance) through April 22, 2010 (the date of inspection), which is 695 days, at the rate of $50.00 per day, plus the $500 fine assessed in the Order of Enforcement. The total fine imposed was $35,250. Lake County Code of Ordinances Section 8-10(a)(2) sets out factors the Special Master is to consider in determining the amount of the daily fine: In determining the amount of the fine, if any, the special master shall consider the following factors: The gravity of the violation; Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; Any previous violations committed by the violator. Special Master Johnson could not remember whether he applied these factors before issuing the Order of Fine. The factors will be considered now. The gravity of the violation is not great. There was no evidence presented of actual harm done to neighboring properties and no evidence that there were complaints from neighbors. The potential for erosion and drainage issues existed, but the County did not show that actual problems occurred or that the potential for harm was significant. The actions taken by the Watsons to correct the noncompliance have been discussed above. The Watsons made efforts to comply, but stopped short of reasonable efforts because they did not submit any kind of permit application and were not willing to employ an engineer to produce a grading plan. The Watsons claim they could have complied with the Order of Enforcement by getting approval for a lot grading plan under an new ordinance, but Lake County prevented them from doing so. In September 2008, the Lake County Code was amended to add procedures for approving lot grading plans. The Watsons were not aware of the new ordinance when it was adopted. The County did not inform them that about the new ordinance. Ms. Marsh said she did not inform Mr. Watson because she was unaware of the new ordinance. The record does not show when the Watsons learned about the new ordinance, but it was after the Order of Fine was issued. When the Watsons learned about the new ordinance, they submitted a Lot Grading Plan in October 2011. The plan was prepared by a licensed engineer. The Watsons' Lot Grading Plan was approved by the County on January 10, 2012. On that date, the Watsons finally came into compliance with the Order of Enforcement. Although the County's failure to inform the Watsons is relevant to the mitigation of fines, it does not excuse the Watsons' failure to apply for a permit for the fill dirt. If they had applied for a permit, the new ordinance would likely have been used by the County. The Watsons also claim they were misled by the County to believe that they did not need to obtain a permit for the fill until they were ready to build a house on the property. However, that representation was part of a settlement proposal which would have required the Watsons to terminate their lawsuits. The Watsons did not terminate their lawsuits, so it is unreasonable for the Watsons to rely on the County’s representation. It appears that the Watsons, convinced that the Order of Enforcement was wrong, were not willing to expend the money necessary to get a permit. In addition, obtaining a permit would have undermined their argument in the ongoing litigation over the Order of Enforcement that no permit was needed. There was no evidence presented regarding previous code violations by the Watsons. Section 8-10(a)(2) allows for as daily fine up to $1,000.00 per day. Special Master Johnson set the daily fine at the very low end of this range. Taking the factors into account, $50.00 a day is a reasonable daily fine amount.1/
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent's license should be suspended, revoked or other disciplinary action imposed based upon the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed January 22, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered and admitted into evidence without objection. Additionally, official recognition was taken of Chapter 21P, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing, the parties substantially agreed to the facts of this case as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent filed an Answer to Petitioner's Request for Admissions which established the following: The Respondent Joseph Marcos is a licensed optician having been issued license number DO 0000733. The last known address of the Respondent is 5954 West 16th Street, Hialeah, Florida. At all material times, the Respondent Marcos operated Marcos Optical, 5954 West 16th Street, Hialeah, Florida, as a licensed optician. While so operating said opticianry, two persons who were not licensed opticians sent out glasses to a third party to be duplicated from existing lenses and prescriptions, thereby, dispensing eyeglasses with no licensed optician on the premises. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent Marcos was charged with permitting an unsupervised person not licensed as an optician in this state to fit or dispense any lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses or other optical devices which are part of the practice of opticianry. At the final hearing, no evidence was presented by the Department of any prior or present administrative proceedings against the Respondent Marcos.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent Joseph Marcos be found guilty of violating Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21P-10.08, Florida Administrative Code, by allowing unlicensed persons to dispense eyeglasses with no licensed supervising optician on the premises, and as penalty therefor, an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fernando E. Heria, Esquire Law Offices of Irma V. Hernandez 215 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Fred Varn, Executive Director Florida Board of Dispensing Opticians 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
